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
The amendment filed 6 January 2026 has been entered.
The examiner considered the argument as to why the Drawing objection should be removed, but the examiner was persuaded. Accordingly, the Drawing objection is maintained in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the past Claim objections and almost all of the 35 USC 112 rejections. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for Claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 7 and 20 has voided interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). The claim interpretation section has been removed 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 22 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 6 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-17 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Drawings
Figure 1A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the.”
In claim 15, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the first process.”
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 14-19 and 21-23 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 14 recites: “utilizing a first process when if the 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…wherein: the first process comprises … placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack.” However, placing a layer between all adjacent steel sheets is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead, the Specification discloses “If it is determined at step S230 that the ratio is greater than 3, the process concludes (CONC) after adding a layer of ASM between adjacent thicker steel sheets of the 3T stack (ALASM) at step S232.” As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 22 recites: “wherein a first layer of the ASM has a first thickness and a second layer of the ASM has a second thickness distinct from the first thickness.” However, there is no mention of the ASM layers having a “first thickness” or a “second thickness.” As a result, by using this claim limitation, 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, and the first thickness is smaller than the second thickness.” However, there is no mention of the ASM layers having a “first thickness” or a “second thickness” where “the first thickness is smaller than the second thickness.” As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claims 15-19 and 21 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 14. These new rejections are based on the amended portions of the 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 16-18 and 21-23 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.
The term “high resistivity” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high resistivity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Specification suggests that aluminum and silicon (Al-Si) is a “high-resistance weld-through material.” For the purpose of the examination, if aluminum and silicon are disclosed, then it will be presumed that these materials are “high resistivity.”
Claim 16-18 recite the limitation "the layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-18 are dependent on claim 14. Claim 14 requires at least two layers between at least three sheets in a stack. For claims 16-18, it is unclear which of the two layers from claim 14 is being referenced. Claim 14 also requires the at least two ASM layers only if the “first process” is selected. However, the condition precedent for the “first process” is not positively recited in claims 16-18. For the purpose of the examination, claims 16-18 will be interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation as “at least one of the layers of ASM…” and such that the claims require “the first process” to be formed. These new rejections are based on the amended portion of the claims.
Claims 21-23 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 16.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites: “wherein the layer of ASM is placed between more than the thickest two steel sheets of the stack.” Claim 18 is dependent on claim 14, which recites: “placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack.” Claim 18 does not include all of the limitations of claim 14. Whereas claim 14 requires ASM layers between all of the steel sheets, claim 18 requires only “more” than a “layer … between…the thickest two steel sheets.” In other words, unlike claim 14, claim 18 does not require at least two ASM layers. Instead, claim 18 requires only more than one ASM layer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
This new rejection is based on the amended portion of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasuo et al. (JP-4884958-B2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
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 (not explicitly disclosed; not required to satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3);
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 less 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 less 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, placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent 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 (not explicitly disclosed; not required to satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3 and less than 1.85);
the second process comprises welding the stack according to the UWS (“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 with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating; “nuggets of sufficient size were obtained at the joints of each steel sheet.,” para 0039; para 0023; forming a weld nugget is construed as a “weld penetration”);
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 less 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 satisfy the claim if the ratio is less than 3 and less than 1.85).
Yasuo, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
326
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, and 10-12 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 Schoonover et al. (US-20180029168-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 does not explicitly disclose that the surface coating is “adhesive” or that it is a “sealer;” however 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); and
resistance welding the stack according to a unified weld schedule (UWS) such that weld penetration (“nuggets of sufficient size were obtained at the joints of each steel sheet.,” para 0039; para 0023) extends into all the at least three steel sheets (“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 with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating).
Yasuo does not explicitly disclose placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Schoonover teaches placing a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (adhesive material 38, fig. 5; provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer;” “second filler material 56 is silicon (Si), which has relatively higher resistivity than aluminum, such that the filler particles 36 made of the mixture of manganese dioxide, silicon and aluminum,” para 0058) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack (sheets 12 and 14, fig. 5; thickness of component 50 is “.8 mm” and each sheet 12 and 14 has a thickness of “2.0 mm,” para 0024; construed such that sheet 12 and 14 are the thickest two steel sheets, i.e. thicker than component 50).
Schoonover, fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
699
774
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 Schoonover, by using an adhesive material 38 that includes a filler material of silicon and aluminum, as taught by Schoonover, between plates 1 and 2 and instead of the surface coating 3a that is already between plates 2 and 3, as taught by Yasuo, 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 3, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), a sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and/or a resistive metallic coating (“high resistivity” that includes “aluminum,” para 0057).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM is a combination of at least two of the adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), the sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (“example 9,” para 0058).
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 does not explicitly disclose that the surface coating is “adhesive” or that it is a “sealer;” however 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); 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 placing a respective layer of adhesive/sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Schoonover teaches placing a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (adhesive material 38, fig. 5; provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer;” “second filler material 56 is silicon (Si), which has relatively higher resistivity than aluminum, such that the filler particles 36 made of the mixture of manganese dioxide, silicon and aluminum,” para 0058) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack (sheets 12 and 14, fig. 5; thickness of component 50 is “.8 mm” and each sheet 12 and 14 has a thickness of “2.0 mm,” para 0024; construed such that sheet 12 and 14 are the thickest two steel sheets, i.e. thicker than component 50).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), a sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and/or a resistive metallic coating (“high resistivity” that includes “aluminum,” para 0057).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM is a combination of at least two of the adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), the sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (“example 9,” para 0058).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein each of the layers of ASM includes he adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), the sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), and the Aluminum-Silicon Al-Si (“example 9,” para 0058).
Claims 2 and 9 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 Schoonover et al. (US-20180029168-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 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_image3.png
927
756
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, 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).
Claims 6 and 13 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 Schoonover et al. (US-20180029168-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 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_image4.png
563
924
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 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 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).
Claims 15-18 and 21-22 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) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Schoonover et al. (US-20180029168-A1) and Chergui (US-20160114421-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yasuo teaches utilizing a first process (para 0001) when the weld is intended for a predefined area (area between electrodes 5 and 6 in the steel plates 1-3, fig. 1) of a welded assembly (fig. 1); 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), placing a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (surface coating 3a, fig. 1; Yasuo does not explicitly disclose that the surface coating is “adhesive” or that it is a “sealer;” however 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”) 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 (“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 with electrical varying forces that provide controlled heating); further comprising utilizing a 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 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; placing a respective layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack, 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Schoonover teaches placing a layer of adhesive / sealer material (ASM) (adhesive material 38, fig. 5; provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer;” “second filler material 56 is silicon (Si), which has relatively higher resistivity than aluminum, such that the filler particles 36 made of the mixture of manganese dioxide, silicon and aluminum,” para 0058) between all adjacent steel sheets of the stack (sheets 12 and 14, fig. 5; thickness of component 50 is “.8 mm;” each sheet 12 and 14 has a thickness of “2.0 mm,” para 0024; construed such that sheet 12 and 14 are the thickest two steel sheets, i.e. thicker than component 50).
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, between plates 1 and 2 and instead of the surface coating 3a that is already between plates 2 and 3, as taught by Yasuo, 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).
Yasuo /Schoonover teach the invention as described above but do not explicitly disclose 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; 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.
However, in the same field of endeavor of resistance welding, Chergui teaches 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, and 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).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover and Chergui as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein at least one of the layers of ASM includes an adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), or high resistivity metallic coating (“high resistivity” that includes “aluminum” and “silicon” para 0057).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover and Chergui as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 17. Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein at least one of the layers of ASM is a combination of at least two of adhesive (adhesive material 38, fig. 5), sealer (provides corrosion resistance, para 0044; construed as a “sealer”), or Aluminum-Silicon (Al-Si) (“aluminum” and “silicon” para 0057).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover and Chergui as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Specifically, Schoonover teaches wherein at least one of the layers of ASM (adhesive material 38, fig. 5) is between the thickest two steel sheets of the stack (sheets 12 and 14, fig. 5). Additionally, Yasuo teaches more (layer 3a between plates 2 and 3, fig. 1)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover and Chergui as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, 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 (Al-Si) (“aluminum” and “silicon” para 0057).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Yasuo in view of Schoonover and Chergui as set forth above regarding claim 15 teaches the invention of claim 22. Specifically, Yasuo teaches wherein a first layer of the ASM has a first thickness (“film formation to 1.0 to 3.0 μm,” para 0026). Additionally, Schoonover teaches a second layer of the ASM has a second thickness (“he adhesive core 16 within the range of about 0.0005 inches to 0.0030 inches (approximately 0.013 millimeters (mm) to 0.076 mm),,” para 0022) distinct from the first thickness (construed as different thicknesses).
Claim 19 is 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) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Endo et al. (US-20220228233-A1).
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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 22, 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 the first thickness is smaller than the second thickness.”
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 22.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered.
B. Objections to the Drawings
Regarding the objection for labeling a drawing in the Instant Application as “prior art,” page 10 of the arguments references MPEP 608.02 and states that this section of the MPEP does not require labeling a drawing a “prior art.” Instead, this section states that a drawing “may be” labeled as “prior art.”
However, the examiner reviewed this section of this section of the MPEP and could not find any support for the Applicant’s position. Instead, MPEP 608.02(g) states that prior-art drawings “are usually unnecessary and should be canceled.” Instead of cancelling the drawing, this section of the MPEP permits Applicants to label such drawings as “Prior Art.” Furthermore, respectfully submit that there is no mention in this MPEP section of labeling drawings as a “current welding process,” which is the label was used in the drawing filed 6 January 2026.
Moreover, during the recent interview, the Applicant argued that labeling a drawing as “prior art” would be admission by the Applicant that fig. 1A of the drawings should be considered as “prior art.” The examiner took issue with this argument (please see interview summary filed 7 January 2026). The examiner notes that MPEP 2129 supports the examiner’s position. Labeling the inventor’s own work as “prior art” does not constitute admission as prior art. Instead, when someone else’s work is identified as “prior art,” then this constitutes admission as prior art. As a result, respectfully submit that labeling fig. 1A as “prior art” does not constitute admission as prior art because fig. 1A represents the inventor’s own work.
F. Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Pages 12-13 of the arguments states that the term “high resistivity” was removed from claim 16. However, respectfully submit that this term is still present in claim 16.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Yasuo and Yasuo combined with Schoonover.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 3/16/2026