DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/25 has been entered.
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 10, 13, 15-17, and 19 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 10 recites “the high tensile strength steel has a higher tensile strength than the steel”. While there may be support for the “high tensile strength steel” being different than “steel”; see PA Pub 0040, support for how they are different, let alone one having higher tensile strength than the other, cannot be found. Note that “steel” encompasses all steels and depending on the definition of “high tensile strength steel”, steels like maraging steel or stainless steel may have a higher tensile strength; i.e. “steel” does not inherently have a lower tensile strength than “high tensile strength steel”.
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 10, 13, 15-17, and 19 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.
The term “high” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. Thus, the degree at which the tensile strength is “high” cannot be ascertained.
While the applicant has argued that “a person of ordinary skill in the art could clearly understand this term” the examiner disagrees. Since there are multiple definitions of what a high tensile strength steel can be one cannot explicitly say what is or is not; i.e. not all definitions teach the same range of tensile strength. Even among the references cited by the applicant there is no exact agreement. Furthermore, now the applicant appears to define “high tensile strength steel” as having a higher tensile strength than “steel”, which is a different definition than that of the references the applicant has already used to define “high”. Note that objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2017/0334016 A1) in view of Copper et al. (US 2016/0158876 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rinker teaches:
A joining method for joining a joining member group comprising a plurality of joining members,
wherein the joining method comprises joining in which a horn part [welding horn (14); figure 1] provided in a joining machine [vibration welding system (10)] applies sound vibration and/or ultrasound vibration to the joining member group so as to join the joining member group plurality of joining members [0019],
wherein, in the joining, the horn part applies the sound vibration and/or ultrasound vibration to the joining member group via a buffer member [aluminum, copper, steel, or thermoplastic cover piece (26); 0018],
wherein the joining member group plurality of joining members includes a first joining member [high tensile strength steel cable (24)] that is closest to the horn part and a second joining member [aluminum, copper, steel, or thermoplastic substrate (22)] adjacent to the first joining member [see figure 1],
wherein the buffer member and the first joining member are each a metal member [see above],
wherein the first joining member is formed from high tensile strength steel [high tensile strength steel cable (24)], and
wherein the buffer member is formed from aluminum [cover piece (26) may be aluminum; 0018].
Rinker does not teach:
the buffer member having a greater softness than that of the horn part;
wherein the first joining member and the second joining member are joined with an improvement in transmission efficiency with respect to sound energy transmitted by the horn part to the first joining member as compared with an arrangement without including the buffer member;
wherein the horn part is formed from steel;
wherein the high tensile strength steel has a higher tensile strength than the steel; and
wherein, in the joining, a temperature of the first joining member becomes higher than that of the buffer member and the second joining member.
Concerning the horn being formed of steel and the relative softness and strength:
Copper teaches ultrasonic horn (18) may be made from steel; 0023.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the Rinker welding horn of steel because it is a relatively cheap material and/or since it is known to do so, minus any unexpected results. In doing so, the aluminum cover piece is softer than the prior art steel welding horn and since the applicant claims high tensile strength steel has a higher tensile strength than “steel” the so does the prior art steel welding horn.
Concerning any claimed results:
Since the prior art process, i.e. the process based on the combined prior art references above, is identical to the claimed process it is the examiner’s position that the prior art process will achieve any claimed result; such as the improvement in transmission efficiency and higher joining temperature. This reasoning applies to any claim below where a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Rinker teaches:
wherein, in the joining, a temperature of the buffer member becomes higher than a melting temperature [the temperature of the cover piece is intrinsically higher than the melting point of ice due to the friction of the bonding process].
Regarding claim 17, Rinker does not teach:
wherein the buffer member and the first and second joining members are each configured as a flat plate member.
However, Rinker provides one with the ability to weld high tensile strength steel to aluminum, copper, steel, or thermoplastic without damaging the surface of the steel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that one wanting a weldment made from plates of these materials to use the Rinker process to do so. One would have been motivated to weld plates of these materials together in order to manufacture an object having the properties of both plates, minus any unexpected results.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2017/0334016 A1) in view of Copper et al. (US 2016/0158876 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (JP 58-100989 A).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Rinker does not teach:
wherein at least one from among the buffer member and the first and second joining members is provided with a protrusion on a contact face with another member; or
wherein at least one from among the buffer member and the first and second joining members is provided with a recessed groove structure on a contact face.
Miyazaki teaches projections (8a) are provided on at least one of the joining surfaces of workpieces (7, 8) so that during ultrasonic bonding the projections discharge surface contaminants in order to provide clean metallic surfaces; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Miyazaki projection concept into the prior art process in order to provide clean metallic surfaces. Note that in doing so, the projections would be placed on either the cable or substrate and the projections would form recesses on one of the cable or substrate upon bonding.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2017/0334016 A1) in view of Copper et al. (US 2016/0158876 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 10,052,713 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Rinker does not teach:
in the joining, the horn part is supported at a plurality of support positions, and
wherein a contact portion of the horn part to be pressed in contact with the buffer member is arranged between the plurality of support positions.
Sato teaches ultrasound/sound bonding apparatus (21) comprising support (33), resonator (36), and bonding tool section (37), wherein the bonding tool is placed between support sections (35), which support the resonator at two positions; see figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use any bonding apparatus to perform the bonding of Rinker since they are functional equivalents. One would have been motivated to use the Sato bonding apparatus due to cost, availability, and/or familiarity, minus any unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“However, in Rinker's process, because cable 24 (124/224 in Figs. 2 and 3) is thin, cover piece 26 (126/226 in Figs. 2 and 3) and substrate 22 (122/222 in Figs. 2 and 3) are in contact with one another, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3…
Also, cable 24 (or 124/224) is relatively thin as compared to an energy-supplying part, i.e., element 30 (or 130/230).
Accordingly, while some energy is supplied from element 30 (or 130/230) to cable 24 (or 124/224), most energy from element 130 is provided directly to cover piece 26 (or 126/226) and substrate 22 (or 122/222).
Because most energy is directly provided to substrate 22 (second joining member) without going through cable 24 (first joining member), the temperature of Rinker's cable 24 (first joining member) would not increase to be higher than the temperature of his substrate 22 (second joining member).
For the above reasons, in Rinker's configuration, the limitation "in the joining, a temperature of the first joining member [, i.e., cable 24] becomes higher than that of the buffer member and the second joining member [, i.e., substrate 22]."
First, the Rinker drawings are not to scale nor has the applicant provided any concrete numbers to support their position. Second, figure 1 is a side view of the process, not a cross-sectional view, and this side view shows cover piece (26) does not contact the substrate (22). Lastly, the claimed method is not limited by the perceived restrictions noted above and thus the claim allows for these to exist and still achieve the claimed results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735