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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. The examiner agrees with the Applicant that the examiner made a mistake in the previous Office action filed 19 March 2026 (see page 10 of the arguments filed 2 June 2026). Specifically, pages 23-24 of the Office action should have identified claim 23 as having allowable material if the intervening 35 USC 112 rejections were overcome. Because the examiner made this mistake, the finality from the Office action filed 19 March 2026 has been withdrawn, and a second Non-final Office action is subsequently being issued.
The amendment filed 2 June 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Drawing objection. However, new Drawing objections are provided in the current Office action.
New Specification objections are provided in the current Office action.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the present Office action.
The examiner considered the Applicant’s arguments, filed 2 June 2026, as to why the previous amendments that were not made should not be considered new matter, but the examiner was not persuaded. These new amendments have now been incorporated into the claims 1, 8, and 14. As a result, there are still grounds for new-matter rejections in the present Office action.
New 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 102 and 103 still stand.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the intervening 35 USC 112 rejections were overcome.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 2 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 8, 12, 14-15, 17, and 23 have been amended. Claims 16, 18, 20, and 22 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 1, “placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” is not shown in any of the Drawings.
In claim 8, “a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” is not shown in any of the Drawings.
In claim 14, “wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” is not shown in any of the Drawings.
Instead of showing ASM layers between all of the steel sheets, fig. 1A shows an ASM layer between sheet T1 and T2. Additionally, fig. 1B shows only an ASM layer between sheet T2 and T3 (please see paragraph 0021 of the Specification). Moreover, step 232 of fig. 2 in the Drawing is described as “adding a layer of ASM between adjacent thicker steel sheets of the 3T stack (ALASM)” (correlates with what is shown in fig. 1B). The Drawings do not show an ASM layer between sheets T1 and T2 and another layer between sheets T2 and T3. The Drawings also do not show a first layer of ASM that being thinner than a second layer of ASM.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the Specification does not provide antecedent basis for the following limitations from the claims:
In claim 1, “placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” does not have antecedent basis in the Specification.
In claim 8, “a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” does not have antecedent basis in the Specification.
In claim 14, “wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” does not have antecedent basis in the Specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claims to recite: “the adhesive, the sealer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19, 21, and 23 are 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 1 recites: “placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” However, placing a layer between all of adjacent steel sheets is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of showing ASM layers between all of the steel sheets, fig. 1A shows one ASM layer between sheets T1 and T2. Additionally, fig. 1B shows only one ASM layer between sheets T2 and T3 (please see paragraph 0021 of the Specification). Moreover, there is no disclosure of that “a first layer of ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” As a result, by using these claim limitations, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 8 recites: “a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” However, placing a layer between all of adjacent steel sheets is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of showing ASM layers between all of the steel sheets, fig. 1A shows one ASM layer between sheets T1 and T2. Additionally, fig. 1B shows only one ASM layer between sheets T2 and T3 (please see paragraph 0021 of the Specification). Moreover, there is no disclosure of that “a first layer of ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” As a result, by using these claim limitations, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 14 recites: “placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between adjacent thicker steel sheets of the stack and resistance welding the stack according to a unified weld schedule (UWS) such that weld penetration extends into all of the steel sheets in the stack, the UWS utilizing a varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” However, placing a layer between the thicker steel sheets is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of showing ASM layers between all of the thicker steel sheets, fig. 1B shows only one ASM layer between sheets T2 and T3 (please see paragraph 0021 of the Specification). Moreover, there is no disclosure of a “first layer” or a “second layer” of ASM or that “a first layer of ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.” As a result, by using these claim limitations, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 23 recites: “the first layer of the ASM is disposed between the thickest of the steel sheets and a second thickest of the steel sheets, the second layer of the ASM is disposed between the thinnest of the steel sheets and the second thickest of the steel sheets.” However, placing a layer between all of adjacent steel sheets is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of showing ASM layers between all of the steel sheets, fig. 1A shows one ASM layer between sheets T1 and T2. Additionally, fig. 1B shows only one ASM layer between sheets T2 and T3 (please see paragraph 0021 of the Specification). As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-13, 15, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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 14-15, 17, 19, and 21 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 14 recites: “determining a thickness of each of the at least three steel sheets;
utilizing a first process when a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets in the stack is greater than 3.0;
utilizing a second process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and a ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is not greater than 1.85;
utilizing a third process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and the ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is greater than 1.85 and fusion is required at an interface between each of the steel sheets of the stack that are not the thinnest; and
utilizing a fourth process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and the ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is greater than 1.85 but fusion is not necessary at an interface between each of the steel sheets of the stack that are not the thinnest,
wherein: the first process comprises arranging the at least three steel sheets as the stack according to the corresponding thicknesses of each of the at least three steel sheets such that a thinnest of the at least three steel sheets is an outermost layer of the stack, placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between adjacent thicker steel sheets of the stack and resistance welding the stack according to a unified weld schedule (UWS) such that weld penetration extends into all of the steel sheets in the stack, the UWS utilizing a varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM;
the second process comprises welding the stack according to the UWS;
the third process comprises classifying the weld as a Single Fusion Zone (SFZ); and
the fourth process comprises welding the stack according to a redesigned process of the first process, the second process, or the third process.”
The metes and bounds of this claim are unclear. The claim requires three steel sheets of different thicknesses and utilizing different processes based on the ratio of thickness between any two of the three steel sheets. However, for three steels, there will be two ratios. It is unclear which ratio should be used to determine which of the processes according to the claim.
For example, a prior art of reference that is used is Yasuo (JP4884958B2). Yasuo teaches three steel sheets. The top sheet has a thickness of 0.7 mm. The middle sheet has a thickness of 2.3 mm. The bottom sheet has a thickness of 1.6 mm. The ratio for the two top sheets is 2.3/0.7=3.3. The ratio for the bottom two sheets is 2.3/1.6=1.4. Based on these ratios, does the claim require performing the first process (the first ratio is 3.3), the second process (the second ratio is 1.4), or a combination of the first and second processes? Also, it is not clear what steps are required for the second, third, or fourth processes. Although the claim details the steps required for the first process, it is not clear what steps are required for the second, third, or fourth processes.
Although fig. 2 of the Drawings shows a flow chart, this flow chart does not describe what welding steps are required for a “unified weld schedule” weld, a “single fusion zone” weld, or a “redesigned process” weld, and how these welds are different from each other. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the metes and bounds of the different processes and which ratio should be used to determine which process, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each of the layers of ASM" in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 only introduces one layer of ASM, i.e., a layer of ASM between the “adjacent thicker steel sheets.” As a result, the number of layers of ASM in claim 14 are unclear. For the first process, does claim 14 require one layer of ASM between the thicker sheets or a layer of ASM between each of the sheets (two total between the three sheets)? Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the metes and bounds of the different processes, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 15 recites: “utilizing the first process when the weld is intended for a predefined area of a welded assembly and the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets of the stack is at least 4.3.” Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14, which recites: “utilizing a first process when a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets in the stack is greater than 3.0.” Claim 15 is unclear because it is not clear if the “first process” is used if the weld is not intended for a predefined area or of there is a ratio that is between 3.0 and 4.3. For example, if the ratio was 3.5, does the “first process” need to be performed? Referring to claim 14, does the “second process,” the “third process,” or the “fourth process” need to be performed instead? Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the metes and bounds of the first process, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 17 recites “The method of claim 16, wherein each of the layers of ASM is a combination of at least two of the adhesive, the sealer, and Aluminum-Silicon (Al-Si).” However, claim 16 has been cancelled. Presupposing that claim 17 was amended to be dependent on claim 14, the ASM layers are specific to the "first process" from claim 14. However, the contingent limitation from claim 14 for the "first process" is not positively recited in claim 17. As a result, it is unclear if claim 17 would need to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Recommend amending claim 17 to be dependent on claim 14 and positively reciting the contingent limitation for the "first process" in claim 17.
Claim 19 recites: “wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone.” Claim 19 is dependent on claim 14, and “the weld penetration” is specific to the "first process" from claim 14. However, the contingent limitation from claim 14 for the "first process" is not positively recited in claim 19. As a result, it is unclear if claim 19 needs to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Recommend positively reciting the contingent limitation for the "first process" in claim 19.
Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 16, wherein each of the layers of ASM includes adhesive, sealer, and Aluminum-Silicon.” However, claim 16 has been cancelled. Presupposing that claim 21 was amended to be dependent on claim 14, the ASM layers are specific to the "first process" from claim 14. However, the contingent limitation from claim 14 for the "first process" is not positively recited in claim 21. As a result, it is unclear if claim 21 would need to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Recommend amending claim 21 to be dependent on claim 14 and positively reciting the contingent limitation for the "first process" in claim 21.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (JP-4884958-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Tseng et al. (US-20140124485-A1) and Oh et al. (US-20230049894-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuo teaches a method for resistance welding (para 0001) at least three steel sheets (steel plates 1-3, fig. 1), each having a corresponding thickness (thickness of steel plate 1 is 1.6 mm, steel plate 2 is 2.3 mm, and steel plate 3 is 0.7 mm, para 0035), the method comprising:
arranging the at least three steel sheets as a stack according to the corresponding thickness of each of the at least three steel sheets such that a thinnest of the at least three steel sheets is an outermost layer of the stack (“overlapped so that the thinnest steel plate 3 is on the outside,” para 0020) and a thickest of the at least three steel sheets is a central layer of the stack (thicket steel plate 2 is construed as the “central layer of the stack,” fig. 1);
placing a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (surface coating 3a, fig. 1; Yasuo teaches that surface coating 3a increases the “contact resistance value,” para 0021; similarly, the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that the ASM layer is a “high-resistance weld-through material”), wherein the layer of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating (“chromate treatment film or a zinc phosphate treatment film,” para 0039; the film is construed as being an adhesive or a sealant and zinc/chrome are metals), between adjacent steel sheets of the stack (plates 2 and 3, fig. 1); and
resistance welding the stack according to a unified weld schedule (UWS) such that weld penetration extends into all the at least three steel sheets (“nuggets of sufficient size were obtained at the joints of each steel sheet.,” para 0039; para 0023; “during welding is constant, three or more steel plates can be spot welded without spatter, and furthermore, sufficient penetration can be formed on the thin steel plate side to obtain sufficient joint strength,” para 0019), the UWS utilizing a varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input (“welding may be performed using pulsation current or multi-stage current,” para 0018; welding using pulsation current or multi-stage current is construed as being time-varying welding that is a “unified weld schedule” with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating; the Specification of the Instant Application defines “Unified Weld Scheduled “ as “varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input”).
Yasuo, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
326
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yasuo does not explicitly disclose placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack; wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Tseng teaches placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) of the at least three steel sheets in the stack (sheets 1a, 1b, and 1c, fig. 2a); wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and/or a sealant), and/or a metallic coating (para 0037 describes metallic powders).
Tseng, fig. 2a
PNG
media_image2.png
286
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Tseng, by applying an active agent between all sheets, as taught by Tseng, instead of just the sheets 2 and 3, as taught by Yasuo, in order to use an active agent with high resistivity between the sheets in the welding region, for the advantage of increasing the size of the nugget diameter in the weld (Tseng, paras 0017 and 0046).
Yasuo/Tseng do not explicitly disclose wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Oh teaches wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM (in tables 3-4 in para 0077, Oh teaches plates with thickness dimensions similar to that taught by Yasuo; in fig. 6, Oh teaches that the bottom workpieces have a larger cross-sectional area B than a cross-sectional area A for the top workpieces; construed such that the cross-sectional area B is larger than the cross-sectional area A; Tseng teaches adjusting the thickness of the active agent layers based on the area of the metal sheets, para 0039; construed such that based on the combined teachings of Tseng and Oh, the active agent layer in cross-sectional area A is thinner than the active agent layer in cross-sectional area B).
Oh, fig. 6
PNG
media_image3.png
450
848
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo/Tseng, in view of the teachings of Oh, by increasing the coating thickness of the active agent between the facing surfaces of the adjacent sheets based on the area for thicker metal sheets, as taught by Tseng, such that the bottom thicker sheets had a larger cross-sectional area, as taught by Oh, because the resistivity of each layer is dependent on the thickness of each layer of the welding stack, such that the weld nugget diameter is a results-effective variable that is dependent on the thickness of a high-resistivity coating, for the advantage of using a larger thickness for the high-resistivity coating at the bottom of the stack, where the sheets are thicker and a higher strength weld is desired at the bottom than at the top of the stack (in para 0077, Oh teaches higher strength welds for the bottom materials than the top material; paras 0045-0052 of Oh teach how the resistivity of the layers is dependent on the thickness of the layers; paras 0038-0039 of Tseng teach the adjusting the thickness of the active agents based on the desired nugget diameter and area of the sheets).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yasuo in view of Tseng and Oh as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Tseng teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) includes an adhesive, a sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and/or a sealant), and/or a resistive metallic coating (para 0037 describes metallic powders that have high resistivity).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yasuo in view of Tseng and Oh as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Tseng teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) is a combination of at least two of the adhesive, the sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and a sealant), and Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 8, Yasuo teaches a weld structure (fig. 1) produced by resistance welding (para 0001) at least three steel sheets (steel plates 1-3, fig. 1) according to a unified weld schedule (“three or more steel plates can be spot welded,” para 0019), each of the at least three steel sheets having a corresponding thickness (thickness of steel plate 1 is 1.6 mm, steel plate 2 is 2.3 mm, and steel plate 3 is 0.7 mm, para 0035), the weld structure comprising:
the at least three steel sheets arranged as a stack (stack of steel plates 1-3, fig. 1) according to the corresponding thickness of each of the at least three steel sheets such that a thinnest of the at least three steel sheets is a bottom layer of the stack (“overlapped so that the thinnest steel plate 3 is on the outside,” para 0020) and a thickest of the at least three steel sheets is a central layer of the stack (thicket steel plate 2 is construed as the “central layer of the stack,” fig. 1); and
a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (surface coating 3a, fig. 1; Yasuo teaches that surface coating 3a increases the “contact resistance value,” para 0021; similarly, the Specification of the Instant Application discloses that the ASM layer is a “high-resistance weld-through material”) between adjacent steel sheets of the stack (plates 2 and 3, fig. 1), wherein the layer of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating (“chromate treatment film or a zinc phosphate treatment film,” para 0039; the film is construed as being an adhesive or a sealant and zinc/chrome are metals); and
a weld penetration extends into all of the at least three steel sheets of the stack (“nuggets of sufficient size were obtained at the joints of each steel sheet.,” para 0039; para 0023).
Yasuo does not explicitly disclose a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack; wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Tseng teaches a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) of the at least three steel sheets in the stack (sheets 1a, 1b, and 1c, fig. 2a); wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and/or a sealant), and/or a metallic coating (para 0037 describes metallic powders).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Tseng, by applying an active agent between all sheets, as taught by Tseng, instead of just the sheets 2 and 3, as taught by Yasuo, in order to use an active agent with high resistivity between the sheets in the welding region, for the advantage of increasing the size of the nugget diameter in the weld (Tseng, paras 0017 and 0046).
Yasuo/Tseng do not explicitly disclose wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Oh teaches wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM (in tables 3-4 in para 0077, Oh teaches plates with thickness dimensions similar to that taught by Yasuo; in fig. 6, Oh teaches that the bottom workpieces have a larger cross-sectional area B than a cross-sectional area A for the top workpieces; construed such that the cross-sectional area B is larger than the cross-sectional area A; Tseng teaches adjusting the thickness of the active agent layers based on the area of the metal sheets, para 0039; construed such that based on the combined teachings of Tseng and Oh, the active agent layer in cross-sectional area A is thinner than the active agent layer in cross-sectional area B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo/Tseng, in view of the teachings of Oh, by increasing the coating thickness of the active agent between the facing surfaces of the adjacent sheets based on the area for thicker metal sheets, as taught by Tseng, such that the bottom thicker sheets had a larger cross-sectional area, as taught by Oh, because the resistivity of each layer is dependent on the thickness of each layer of the welding stack, such that the weld nugget diameter is a results-effective variable that is dependent on the thickness of a high-resistivity coating, for the advantage of using a larger thickness for the high-resistivity coating at the bottom of the stack, where the sheets are thicker and a higher strength weld is desired at the bottom than at the top of the stack (in para 0077, Oh teaches higher strength welds for the bottom materials than the top material; paras 0045-0052 of Oh teach how the resistivity of the layers is dependent on the thickness of the layers; paras 0038-0039 of Tseng teach the adjusting the thickness of the active agents based on the desired nugget diameter and area of the sheets).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yasuo in view of Tseng and Oh as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Tseng teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) includes an adhesive, a sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and/or a sealant), and/or a resistive metallic coating (para 0037 describes metallic powders that have high resistivity).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yasuo in view of Tseng and Oh as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Tseng teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) is a combination of at least two of the adhesive, the sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and a sealant), and Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 14, Yasuo teaches a method for determining weldability solutions when resistance welding at least three steel sheets in a stack (paragraph 0001; steel plates 1-3 are in a stack, fig. 1), each of the at least three steel sheets having a corresponding thickness (“different thicknesses,” para 0020), the method comprising:
determining a thickness (thickness of steel plates 1-3, fig. 1) of each of the at least three steel sheets (“overlapped so that the thinnest steel plate 3 is on the outside,” para 0020; determining that one of the steel plates is the thinnest is construed as “determining a thickness”);
utilizing a first process when a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets in the stack is greater than 3.0 (the ratio for the two top sheets is 2.3/0.7=3.3; construed as a ratio that “is greater than 3.0”);
utilizing a second process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and a ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is not greater than 1.85 (in fig. 1, steel sheets 2 and 1 are adjacent; the thickest steel sheet 2 is 2.3 mm and the thinnest steel sheet 1 is 1.6 mm, para 0035; construed as ratio of 1.43, which is “not greater than 3.0” and “not greater than 1.85”);
utilizing a third process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and the ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is greater than 1.85 and fusion is required at an interface between each of the steel sheets of the stack that are not the thinnest (not explicitly disclosed; not required to satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3 and greater than 1.85);
utilizing a fourth process when the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets is not greater than 3.0 and the ratio of the corresponding thicknesses of a thickest and a thinnest of the steel sheets is greater than 1.85 but fusion is not necessary at an interface between each of the steel sheets of the stack that are not the thinnest, (not explicitly disclosed; not required to satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3 and greater than 1.85) wherein:
the first process comprises arranging the at least three steel sheets as the stack according to the corresponding thicknesses of each of the at least three steel sheets such that a thinnest of the at least three steel sheets is an outermost layer of the stack (“overlapped so that the thinnest steel plate 3 is on the outside,” para 0020), and resistance welding the stack according to a unified weld schedule (UWS) such that weld penetration extends into all of the steel sheets in the stack (“nuggets of sufficient size were obtained at the joints of each steel sheet.,” para 0039; para 0023; “during welding is constant, three or more steel plates can be spot welded without spatter, and furthermore, sufficient penetration can be formed on the thin steel plate side to obtain sufficient joint strength,” para 0019), the UWS utilizing a varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input (“welding may be performed using pulsation current or multi-stage current,” para 0018; welding using pulsation current or multi-stage current is construed as being time-varying welding that is a “unified weld schedule” with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating; the Specification of the Instant Application defines “Unified Weld Scheduled “ as “varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input”), wherein the layer of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating (“chromate treatment film or a zinc phosphate treatment film,” para 0039; the film is construed as being an adhesive or a sealant and zinc/chrome are metals);
the second process comprises welding the stack according to the UWS (welding using pulsation current or multi-stage current is construed as being time-varying welding that is a “unified weld schedule” with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating; the Specification of the Instant Application defines “Unified Weld Scheduled “ as “varying current over time to attain varying weld forces via controlled heat input”);
the third process comprises classifying the weld as a Single Fusion Zone (SFZ) (not explicitly disclosed; not required to satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3 and greater than 1.85); and
the fourth process comprises welding the stack according to a redesigned process of the first process, the second process, or the third process (not explicitly disclosed; not required to be satisfied if the ratio is less than 3 and greater than 1.85).
Yasuo does not explicitly disclose placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between adjacent thicker steel sheets of the at least three steel sheets in the stack; wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer, and/or a metallic coating, and wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Tseng teaches placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between adjacent thicker steel sheets (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) of the at least three steel sheets in the stack (sheets 1a, 1b, and 1c, fig. 2a); wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive, a sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and/or a sealant), and/or a metallic coating (para 0037 describes metallic powders).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Tseng, by applying an active agent between all sheets, as taught by Tseng, instead of just the sheets 2 and 3, as taught by Yasuo, in order to use an active agent with high resistivity between the sheets in the welding region, for the advantage of increasing the size of the nugget diameter in the weld (Tseng, paras 0017 and 0046).
Yasuo/Tseng do not explicitly disclose wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Oh teaches wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM (in tables 3-4 in para 0077, Oh teaches plates with thickness dimensions similar to that taught by Yasuo; in fig. 6, Oh teaches that the bottom workpieces have a larger cross-sectional area B than a cross-sectional area A for the top workpieces; construed such that the cross-sectional area B is larger than the cross-sectional area A; Tseng teaches adjusting the thickness of the active agent layers based on the area of the metal sheets, para 0039; construed such that based on the combined teachings of Tseng and Oh, the active agent layer in cross-sectional area A is thinner than the active agent layer in cross-sectional area B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo/Tseng, in view of the teachings of Oh, by increasing the coating thickness of the active agent between the facing surfaces of the adjacent sheets based on the area for thicker metal sheets, as taught by Tseng, such that the bottom thicker sheets had a larger cross-sectional area, as taught by Oh, because the resistivity of each layer is dependent on the thickness of each layer of the welding stack, such that the weld nugget diameter is a results-effective variable that is dependent on the thickness of a high-resistivity coating, for the advantage of using a larger thickness for the high-resistivity coating at the bottom of the stack, where the sheets are thicker and a higher strength weld is desired at the bottom than at the top of the stack (in para 0077, Oh teaches higher strength welds for the bottom materials than the top material; paras 0045-0052 of Oh teach how the resistivity of the layers is dependent on the thickness of the layers; paras 0038-0039 of Tseng teach the adjusting the thickness of the active agents based on the desired nugget diameter and area of the sheets).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yasuo in view of Tseng and Oh as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Tseng teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM (“coating a joining zone of one of two mutually facing surfaces respectively of two adjacent metal sheets 1 a and 1 b,” para 0036) is a combination of at least two of the adhesive, the sealer (“The multi-component powders are mixed with methanol” para 0037; methanol is construed as being an adhesive and a sealant), and Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (not explicitly disclosed).
Claims 2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (JP-4884958-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Tseng et al. (US-20140124485-A1) and Oh et al. (US-20230049894-A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above and further in view of Chergui (US-20160114421-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is performed when a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets of the stack is at least 4.3.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Chergui teaches wherein the method is performed when a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets (metal sheet 2 and metallic component 4, fig. 3A) of the stack is at least 4.3 (“the ratio of the thickness of the component to the thickness of the sheet with the smallest thickness is greater than 4 (or 5),” para 0034; construed as a ratio greater that is at least 5.0).
Fig. 3a, Chergui
PNG
media_image4.png
927
756
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Chergui, by using a ratio of at least 5, as taught by Chergui, for the plates 3 and 2, as taught by Yasuo, and by using the circuit for preheating, as taught by Chergui in fig. 4, in order to soften the top plate 3 prior to welding, for the advantage of ensuring that the thin metal sheet in the stack-up completely fuses with the weld nugget because normally the thin metal does not fuse because it has a low a current density relative to the other workpieces in the weld (Chergui, paras 0004 and 0061).
Regarding claim 9, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets of the stack is at least 4.3.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Chergui teaches wherein a ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets (metal sheet 2 and metallic component 4, fig. 3A) of the stack is at least 4.3 (“the ratio of the thickness of the component to the thickness of the sheet with the smallest thickness is greater than 4 (or 5),” para 0034; construed as a ratio greater that is at least 5.0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Chergui, by using a ratio of at least 5, as taught by Chergui, for the plates 3 and 2, as taught by Yasuo, and by using the circuit for preheating, as taught by Chergui in fig. 4, in order to soften the top plate 3 prior to welding, for the advantage of ensuring that the thin metal sheet in the stack-up completely fuses with the weld nugget because normally the thin metal does not fuse because it has a low a current density relative to the other workpieces in the weld (Chergui, paras 0004 and 0061).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuo teaches further comprising the first process when the weld is intended for a predefined area of a welded assembly (area between electrodes 5 and 6 in the steel plates 1-3, fig. 1).
Yasuo does not explicitly disclose the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets of the stack is at least 4.3.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Chergui teaches the ratio of thicker thickness to thinner thickness of the corresponding thicknesses of any two adjacent steel sheets of the stack (metal sheet 2 and metallic component 4, fig. 3A) is at least 4.3 (“the ratio of the thickness of the component to the thickness of the sheet with the smallest thickness is greater than 4 (or 5),” para 0034; construed as a ratio greater that is at least 5.0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Chergui, by using a ratio of at least 5, as taught by Chergui, for the plates 3 and 2, as taught by Yasuo, and by using the circuit for preheating, as taught by Chergui in fig. 4, in order to soften the top plate 3 prior to welding, for the advantage of ensuring that the thin metal sheet in the stack-up completely fuses with the weld nugget because normally the thin metal does not fuse because it has a low a current density relative to the other workpieces in the weld (Chergui, paras 0004 and 0061).
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (JP-4884958-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Tseng et al. (US-20140124485-A1) and Oh et al. (US-20230049894-A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above and further in view of Endo et al. (US-20220228233-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Endo teaches wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone (“the nugget edge region has a metal microstructure including tempered martensite as a main phase,” abstract; edge region 31, fig. 2).
Endo, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
563
924
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Endo, by forming a martensite microstructure in the edge region of the nuggets, as taught by Endo, in the weld nugget, as taught by Yasuo, by using a cooling process to perform rapid cooling after forming the weld nugget, as taught by Endo, in order to form a microstructure at the edge portion that has a toughness, for the advantage of improving the cross tension strength in a welded joint, to improve crash safety for structural members that are used in automobiles (Endo, paras 0002, 0020, and 0022).
Regarding claim 13, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Endo teaches wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone (“the nugget edge region has a metal microstructure including tempered martensite as a main phase,” abstract; edge region 31, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Endo, by forming a martensite microstructure in the edge region of the nuggets, as taught by Endo, in the weld nugget, as taught by Yasuo, and by using a cooling process to perform rapid cooling after forming the weld nugget, as taught by Endo, in order to form a microstructure at the edge portion that has a toughness, for the advantage of improving the cross tension strength in a welded joint, to improve crash safety for structural members used in automobiles (Endo, paras 0002, 0020, and 0022).
Regarding claim 19, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Endo teaches wherein the weld penetration comprises a weld nugget that has a martensitic microstructure zone (“the nugget edge region has a metal microstructure including tempered martensite as a main phase,” abstract; edge region 31, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Endo, by forming a martensite microstructure in the edge region of the nuggets, as taught by Endo, in the weld nugget, as taught by Yasuo, and by using a cooling process to perform rapid cooling after forming the weld nugget, as taught by Endo, in order to form a microstructure at the edge portion that has a toughness, for the advantage of improving the cross tension strength in a welded joint, to improve crash safety for structural members used in automobiles (Endo, paras 0002, 0020, and 0022).
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuo et al. (JP-4884958-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Tseng et al. (US-20140124485-A1) and Oh et al. (US-20230049894-A1) as applied to claims 8, 10-11, and 14 above and further in view of Schoonover et al. (US-20180029168-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the layers of ASM includes the adhesive, the sealer, and the Aluminum-Silicon.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM includes the adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), the sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and the Aluminum-Silicon (“example 9,” para 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Schoonover, by using an adhesive material 38 that includes a filler material of silicon and aluminum, as taught by Schoonover, as the material for the high-resistivity active-agent layers, as taught by Tseng, in order to form a laminate structure that is characterized by a viscoelastic material 38 that provides vibration damping and corrosion prevention and which has sufficiently high resistivity to generate heat when electrical current is passed through the laminate structure during a welding operation (Schoonover, paras 0017 and 0057).
Regarding claim 21, Yasuo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the layers of ASM includes adhesive, sealer, and Aluminum-Silicon.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM includes adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and Aluminum-Silicon (“example 9,” para 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Yasuo, in view of the teachings of Schoonover, by using an adhesive material 38 that includes a filler material of silicon and aluminum, as taught by Schoonover, as the material for the high-resistivity active-agent layers, as taught by Tseng, in order to form a laminate structure that is characterized by a viscoelastic material 38 that provides vibration damping and corrosion prevention and which has sufficiently high resistivity to generate heat when electrical current is passed through the laminate structure during a welding operation (Schoonover, paras 0017 and 0057).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the intervening 35 USC 112 rejections were overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim 23, and specifically does not show “wherein the first layer of the ASM is disposed between the thickest of the steel sheets and a second thickest of the steel sheets, the second layer of the ASM is disposed between the thinnest of the steel sheets and the second thickest of the steel sheets” and “wherein a first layer of the ASM is thinner than a second layer of the ASM” as recited in claim 1.
The closest prior art references of record are Ishi et al. (JP-6406297-B2) and Morita et al. (JP-2022029726-A). Instead of teaching that the “first thickness is smaller than the second thickness,” both references teach the opposite- that the first thickness should be greater than the second thickness. Specifically, both of these references teach that the resistivity of the thicker workpieces should be greater that the resistivity of the interface with the thinner workpiece. As Ishi teaches in paragraph 0031, the resistivity is proportional to the length of interface. Thus, according to both of these references, the interface should be longer or thicker between the thicker workpieces (greater resistivity infers longer interface length).
Another reference that was considered is Oh (US-20230049894-A1). However, similar to Ishi and Morita, Oh teaches a thicker interface between the thicker workpieces at the bottom where the thicker workpieces are located than at the top where the thin workpiece is located (referencing fig. 6 and tables 2-4 of Oh).
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in claim 23.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Page 9 of the arguments states that fig. 1B of the drawings in the Instant Application provide support for “two layers of ASM as having distinct thicknesses.”
However, the Specification of the Instant Application describes fig. 1B as “as illustrated in FIG. 1B, the process according to the present disclosure places the layer of ASM between thicker sheets of steel T1 and T2, with no layer of ASM between thinner sheet T3 and adjacent thicker sheet T2.” Instead of showing two layers of ASM, fig. 1b is described as showing only one layer between sheets T1 and T2 and no layer between sheets T2 and T3.
Applicant’s remaining arguments on pages 8-9 are conclusory and do not provide any evidence to show how the new-matter-rejection limitations have support in the Specification or in the Drawings.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 and 103
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 2 June 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Yasuo combined with Tseng and Oh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights