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 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome the Specification objection. The Specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections. The Claim objections and the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 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 § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 24 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (JP-2011067853-A, hereinafter Oikawa ‘853; referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) in view of Oikawa et al. (JP-2015093282-A, hereinafter Oikawa ‘282; referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) and Matsuda et al. (JP-6315161-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 1, Oikawa ‘853 teaches a method for producing a resistance-welded member (“spot welding method for high-strength steel plates…welded by a resistance spot welding method,” para 0010) including at least one plated high-tensile steel sheet having a base metal strength of 980 MPa or more (“high-strength steel plates having a tensile strength of 900 to 1850 MPa,” para 0010; rejection relies on example no. 26, table 2; uses a sheet with strength “1485 MPa”), the method comprising:
a main energizing (“Wt,” fig. 2b) by performing energization with a first current value (“WC,” fig. 2b; “7.26 kA,” example no. 26, table 2) while compressing the steel sheets with a first compressive force (“4.41 kN,” example no. 26, table 2; during spot welding, “pressure” is applied by the electrodes 2A and 2B, fig. 1; para 0037) to form a nugget (nugget 31, fig. 1);
a subsequent energizing (“Pt2,” fig. 2b) by performing, after the main energizing (“Wt,” fig. 2b), energization with a second current value (“PC2,” fig. 2b; “4.05 kA,” example no. 26, table 2) smaller than the first current value (“7.26 kA,” example no. 26, table 2); and
wherein: the steel sheets are joined under conditions satisfying formulae (2) to (3):
B<0.7 Formula (2)
wherein B=I2/I1 (4.05 kA / 7.26 kA = 0.558, which is less than 0.7),
I1 (7.26 kA,” example no. 26, table 2) represents the first current value [kA]; and
I2 (“4.05 kA,” example no. 26, table 2) represents the second current value [kA], respectively; and
C≤Tw2 (Pt2, fig. 2b; “200 ms,” example no. 26, table 2, which is less than 1000) <1000 Formula (3)
wherein C=0.0039Tht^2−2.51Tht+581.3 (Tht is construed as the sum of “Ct,” “Pt2,” and the column after “Pt2” in table 2; this column when translated from Japanese is “retention time,” i.e., the time the electrodes are retained on the sheets; with Ct=20 ms, Pt2=200 ms, and retention time = 160 ms; Tht is construed as 380 ms; C is calculated to equal 190.66, which is less than 200);
Tw2 represents an energization time [ms] in the subsequent energizing (“Pt2” is the amount of time the current is kept at “PC2,” fig. 2b); and
Tht represents an electrode holding time [ms] in the holding the electrode (Tht is construed as the sum of “Ct” and “Pt2” as well as the “retention time” from table 2; this sum is the total amount of time that the electrodes are held against the sheets after the first energization period “Wt,” fig. 2b), respectively.
Oikawa ‘853, figs 1 and 2b; excerpt, table 2
PNG
media_image1.png
258
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
1206
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment, Oikawa ‘853 does not explicitly disclose made of three or more steel sheets; compressing the steel sheets with a second compressive force greater than the first compressive force holding an electrode while maintaining the second compressive force after the subsequent energizing, wherein: the steel sheets are joined under conditions satisfying formula (1): A≥1.4 Formula (1) wherein A=P2/t; P2 represents the second compressive force [kN]; and t represents a total sheet thickness [mm] of the steel sheets, respectively; wherein the first compressive force is applied to compress the steel sheets prior to the performing energization with the first current value.
However, in a different embodiment, Oikawa ‘853 teaches made of three or more steel sheets (“the combination may not be limited to two sheets, but may be three or more sheets,” para 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment shown in experiment no. 26 of Table 2 to weld three sheets instead of two sheets, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, because often in the automotive field, three sheets need to be weld together, e.g., at pillar or frame location of a vehicle, for the advantage of welding high-strength steel sheets together at these locations, which can improve the collision safety of the vehicle (Oikawa ‘853, para 0003).
Oikawa ‘853 does not explicitly disclose compressing the steel sheets with a second compressive force greater than the first compressive force holding an electrode while maintaining the second compressive force after the subsequent energizing, wherein: the steel sheets are joined under conditions satisfying formula (1): A≥1.4 Formula (1) wherein A=P2/t; P2 represents the second compressive force [kN]; and t represents a total sheet thickness [mm] of the steel sheets, respectively; wherein the first compressive force is applied to compress the steel sheets prior to the performing energization with the first current value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Oikawa ‘282 teaches compressing the steel sheets with a second compressive force (PEF1, fig. 2; para 0059) greater than the first compressive force (EF1, fig. 1; para 0059) holding an electrode while maintaining the second compressive force after the subsequent energizing (held at the PEF1 during time “Ht 1,” fig. 2; “electrode holding time,” para 0084), wherein:
the steel sheets are joined under conditions satisfying formula (1):
A≥1.4 Formula (1)
wherein A=P2/t (formula 2, para 0053:
1.96
*
t
≤
E
F
1
; formula 3, para 0059:
1.2
*
E
F
1
≤
P
E
F
1
; thus,
E
F
1
≤
P
E
F
1
1.2
; substituting formula 2 into formula 3:
1.96
t
≤
E
F
1
≤
P
E
F
1
1.2
or
2.352
≤
P
E
F
1
t
; 2.352 is greater than the lower bound of 1.4 from formula 1);
P2 represents the second compressive force [kN] (“PEF1 (kN),” para 0059); and
t represents a total sheet thickness [mm] (“plate thickness t (mm),” para 0053) of the steel sheets, respectively.
Oikawa ‘282, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
754
628
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 Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Oikawa ‘282, by using a higher pressure PEF1 than EF1, as taught by Oikawa ‘282, during the welding time Wt, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, and where the electrode holding time “HT,” as taught by Oikawa ‘282, was the “retention time,” as taught by Oikawa ‘853, in order to using a higher pressure PEF1 than the pressure EF1, thereby adopting conditions that reduce the tensile residual stress in the weld, suppressing fractures in the weld and improving the strength of the weld, and in order to use a holding time that is between 0 and 200 ms after the current is stopped, the duration of which has a significant effect on preventing the occurrence of defects or cracks in the nugget (Oikawa ‘282, paras 0060 and 0068; Oikawa ‘853 teaches a holding time or retention time of 160 ms in Table 2).
Oikawa ‘853 / Okawa ‘282 do not explicitly disclose wherein the first compressive force is applied to compress the steel sheets prior to the performing energization with the first current value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Matsuda teaches wherein the first compressive force is applied (force F1, fig. 2) to compress the steel sheets (“overlapping steel sheets,” para 0026, page 21) prior to the performing energization with the first current value (current value I1, fig. 2; the force F1 is applied before the current I1, annotated in fig. 2 below).
Matsuda, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
684
983
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 Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Matsuda, by applying the pressure during welding time Wt, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, prior to applying the current, as taught by Matsuda, in order to ensure that the steel plates are clamped and connected at the weld joint, so that a weld nugget will then form when the steel plates are joined and current passes through them, because if the plates are not connected at the weld joint, then electrical current will not pass through the steel plates at the desired location for the weld joint (Matsuda, paras 0002 and 0017).
Regarding claim 2, Oikawa ‘853 teaches wherein the Tw2 and the Tht satisfy formula (4):
D≤Tw2 (Pt2, fig. 2b; “200 ms,” example no. 26, table 2, which is less than 1000) <1000 Formula (4)
wherein D=0.0063Tht^2−4.32Tht+923.87 (Tht is construed as the sum of “Ct,” “Pt2,” and the column after “Pt2” in table 2; this column when translated from Japanese is “retention time,” i.e., the time the electrodes are retained on the sheets; with Ct=20 ms, Pt2=200 ms, and retention time = 160 ms; Tht is construed as 380 ms; D is calculated to equal 191.99, which is less than 200).
Regarding claim 3, Oikawa ‘853 teaches wherein the Tw2 and the Tht satisfy formula (4):
D≤Tw2 (Pt2, fig. 2b; “200 ms,” example no. 26, table 2, which is less than 1000) <1000 Formula (4)
wherein D=0.0063Tht^2−4.32Tht+923.87 (Tht is construed as the sum of “Ct,” “Pt2,” and the column after “Pt2” in table 2; this column when translated from Japanese is “retention time,” i.e., the time the electrodes are retained on the sheets; with Ct=20 ms, Pt2=200 ms, and retention time = 160 ms; Tht is construed as 380 ms; D is calculated to equal 191.99, which is less than 200).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Oikawa ‘853 in view of Oikawa ‘282 as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Oikawa ‘853 teaches wherein a compression rise delay time (cooling time “Ct,” fig. 2b) which is a time difference between an end of energization with the first current value (end of “Wt” at current value “WC,” fig. 2b) and a start (start of “Pt2” at “PC2,” fig. 2b) satisfies formula (5):
−100≤Td1≤300 (for example 26 in Table 2, “Ct=20,” which is inside the claimed range) Formula (5)
wherein Td1 represents the compression rise delay time [ms] (“cooling time,” para 0011). Additionally, Oikawa ‘282 teaches compression with the second compressive force (P2) (“PEF1,” fig. 2)
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (JP-2011067853-A, hereinafter Oikawa ‘853; referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) in view of Oikawa et al. (JP-2015093282-A, hereinafter Oikawa ‘282; referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) and Matsuda et al. (JP-6315161-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1-3 and 6 above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US-20150034609-A1) and Ferguson et al. (US-4734555-A).
Regarding claim 4, Oikawa ‘853 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine as a welding machine to perform the main energizing; and wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Zhang teaches further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine (“The actuator 24 may be an electrically-actuated linear servo actuator,” para 0027; welding electrodes 20A and 20B provide compression and welding, fig. 1; construed as a servo compression machine) a welding machine (welding system 10, fig. 1) to perform the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” para 0019).
Zhang, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
522
652
media_image6.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 Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Zhang, by using the welding system 10, as taught by Zhang, to perform the spot welding method, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, in order to use welding electrodes that are driven by a linear servo actuator, because this type of actuator is known in the art and can generate a weld force instantaneously without the need for compressed air, resulting in less electrode wear than conventional pneumatic weld guns (Zhang, para 0027).
Oikawa ‘853 / Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Ferguson teaches wherein the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” column 4, lines 27-28) causes an indentation (“indentation,” column 4, line 27) on one of the steel sheets (workpiece 105, fig. 1) by the electrode (electrode 103, fig. 1), and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing (“Welding current may be terminated when the measured indentation reaches a desired value, such as between 5 to 10% of the thickness of the thinnest surface piece being welded,” column 3, lines 44-48) or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force (“after the ‘hold’ period has elapsed, the electrodes are separated,” column 13, lines 20-21; when the electrodes separate, the compressing force is terminated) in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more (“10%,” column 3, line 46; Oikawa ‘853 teaches a thickness of the workpiece of 1.6 mm, example no. 26, table 2; ten percent of the thickness is 0.16 mm).
Ferguson, fig. 1
PNG
media_image7.png
620
442
media_image7.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 Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Ferguson, by stopping, as taught by Ferguson, the welding current “WC,” as taught by Oikawa ‘853, or by stopping the welding current and then after a certain hold time, the applying force, as taught by Ferguson, after an indentation occurs that is 10% of the thickness of the top workpiece, because it is known that an indentation of 5-10 percent of the thickness of the top worksheet is the most desirable amount of indentation to produce welds having sufficient strength (Ferguson, column 2, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 5, Oikawa ‘853 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine as a welding machine to perform the main energizing; and wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Zhang teaches further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine (“The actuator 24 may be an electrically-actuated linear servo actuator,” para 0027; welding electrodes 20A and 20B provide compression and welding, fig. 1; construed as a servo compression machine) a welding machine (welding system 10, fig. 1) to perform the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” para 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Zhang, by using the welding system 10, as taught by Zhang, to perform the spot welding method, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, in order to use welding electrodes that are driven by a linear servo actuator, because this type of actuator is known in the art and can generate a weld force instantaneously without the need for compressed air, resulting in less electrode wear than conventional pneumatic weld guns (Zhang, para 0027).
Oikawa ‘853 / Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Ferguson teaches wherein the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” column 4, lines 27-28) causes an indentation (“indentation,” column 4, line 27) on one of the steel sheets (workpiece 105, fig. 1) by the electrode (electrode 103, fig. 1), and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing (“Welding current may be terminated when the measured indentation reaches a desired value, such as between 5 to 10% of the thickness of the thinnest surface piece being welded,” column 3, lines 44-48) or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force (“after the ‘hold’ period has elapsed, the electrodes are separated,” column 13, lines 20-21; when the electrodes separate, the compressing force is terminated) in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more (“10%,” column 3, line 46; Oikawa ‘853 teaches a thickness of the workpiece of 1.6 mm, example no. 26, table 2; ten percent of the thickness is 0.16 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Ferguson, by stopping, as taught by Ferguson, the welding current “WC,” as taught by Oikawa ‘853, or by stopping the welding current and then after a certain hold time, the applying force, as taught by Ferguson, after an indentation occurs that is 10% of the thickness of the top workpiece, because it is known that an indentation of 5-10 percent of the thickness of the top worksheet is the most desirable amount of indentation to produce welds having sufficient strength (Ferguson, column 2, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 7, Oikawa ‘853 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine as a welding machine to perform the main energizing; and wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Zhang teaches further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine (“The actuator 24 may be an electrically-actuated linear servo actuator,” para 0027; welding electrodes 20A and 20B provide compression and welding, fig. 1; construed as a servo compression machine) a welding machine (welding system 10, fig. 1) to perform the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” para 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Zhang, by using the welding system 10, as taught by Zhang, to perform the spot welding method, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, in order to use welding electrodes that are driven by a linear servo actuator, because this type of actuator is known in the art and can generate a weld force instantaneously without the need for compressed air, resulting in less electrode wear than conventional pneumatic weld guns (Zhang, para 0027).
Oikawa ‘853 / Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Ferguson teaches wherein the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” column 4, lines 27-28) causes an indentation (“indentation,” column 4, line 27) on one of the steel sheets (workpiece 105, fig. 1) by the electrode (electrode 103, fig. 1), and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing (“Welding current may be terminated when the measured indentation reaches a desired value, such as between 5 to 10% of the thickness of the thinnest surface piece being welded,” column 3, lines 44-48) or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force (“after the ‘hold’ period has elapsed, the electrodes are separated,” column 13, lines 20-21; when the electrodes separate, the compressing force is terminated) in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more (“10%,” column 3, line 46; Oikawa ‘853 teaches a thickness of the workpiece of 1.6 mm, example no. 26, table 2; ten percent of the thickness is 0.16 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Ferguson, by stopping, as taught by Ferguson, the welding current “WC,” as taught by Oikawa ‘853, or by stopping the welding current and then after a certain hold time, the applying force, as taught by Ferguson, after an indentation occurs that is 10% of the thickness of the top workpiece, because it is known that an indentation of 5-10 percent of the thickness of the top worksheet is the most desirable amount of indentation to produce welds having sufficient strength (Ferguson, column 2, lines 19-23).
Regarding claim 8, Oikawa ‘853 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine as a welding machine to perform the main energizing; and wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Zhang teaches further comprising: employing a servo compression welding machine (“The actuator 24 may be an electrically-actuated linear servo actuator,” para 0027; welding electrodes 20A and 20B provide compression and welding, fig. 1; construed as a servo compression machine) a welding machine (welding system 10, fig. 1) to perform the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” para 0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Zhang, by using the welding system 10, as taught by Zhang, to perform the spot welding method, as taught by Oikawa ‘853, in order to use welding electrodes that are driven by a linear servo actuator, because this type of actuator is known in the art and can generate a weld force instantaneously without the need for compressed air, resulting in less electrode wear than conventional pneumatic weld guns (Zhang, para 0027).
Oikawa ‘853 / Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the main energizing causes an indentation on one of the steel sheets by the electrode, and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spot welding, Ferguson teaches wherein the main energizing (“resistance spot welding,” column 4, lines 27-28) causes an indentation (“indentation,” column 4, line 27) on one of the steel sheets (workpiece 105, fig. 1) by the electrode (electrode 103, fig. 1), and the main energizing includes forcibly terminating the main energizing (“Welding current may be terminated when the measured indentation reaches a desired value, such as between 5 to 10% of the thickness of the thinnest surface piece being welded,” column 3, lines 44-48) or both the main energizing and the compressing with the first compressive force (“after the ‘hold’ period has elapsed, the electrodes are separated,” column 13, lines 20-21; when the electrodes separate, the compressing force is terminated) in response to a depth of the indentation becoming 0.15 mm or more (“10%,” column 3, line 46; Oikawa ‘853 teaches a thickness of the workpiece of 1.6 mm, example no. 26, table 2; ten percent of the thickness is 0.16 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oikawa ‘853, in view of the teachings of Ferguson, by stopping, as taught by Ferguson, the welding current “WC,” as taught by Oikawa ‘853, or by stopping the welding current and then after a certain hold time, the applying force, as taught by Ferguson, after an indentation occurs that is 10% of the thickness of the top workpiece, because it is known that an indentation of 5-10 percent of the thickness of the top worksheet is the most desirable amount of indentation to produce welds having sufficient strength (Ferguson, column 2, lines 19-23).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Oikawa ‘853 and Oikawa ‘282 combined with Matsuda.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 2/20/2026