DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/24/26 . As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 6 have been amended; and no claims have been cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-10 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (JP 2005103608) in view of Hideki (WO 2014033931).
With regard to claims 1, Oikawa teaches a resistance spot welding method (“In the method of improving the corrosion resistance, tensile strength and fatigue strength of welded joints formed by spot welding high strength plated steel sheets”, cl. 1) comprising: sandwiching two or more overlapped steel sheets (steel plates 1, FIG. 3) between a pair of welding electrodes (electrodes 2, FIG. 1), applying current to the steel sheets (1) while pressing the steel sheets (1), forming a nugget on overlapping surfaces of the steel sheets (1) to join the steel sheets (1) (“As shown in FIG. 2, the high strength plated steel plates 1 are overlapped with each other, energized while being pressed with a copper electrode 2 to form a melted portion between the steel plates, and after energization, the melted portion is cooled to solidify the nugget. 3 is formed.”), and after the joining, irradiating the nugget with sound waves having a frequency of 10 Hz to 100000 Hz (“Note that the frequency, amplitude, and transmission output of the ultrasonic wave used in the ultrasonic impact treatment need not be specified, but the ultrasonic wave having a frequency of 20-60 kHz, an amplitude of 20-40 μm, and a transmission output of 500-1500 W is used for the ultrasonic wave. It is desirable to perform sonic impact theory. If the frequency is lower than this, the noise during the ultrasonic impact treatment increases, and if it is higher than this, the scale of the apparatus becomes too large.”) (emphasis added).
Oikawa further teaches the limitation of “the sound wave irradiation is performed without contacting the steel sheets.” (“The present invention is characterized in that an ultrasonic impact treatment is performed on one part or both sides of the spot welded portion on the nugget 3 parts and the cracked part of the heat-affected part around the nugget..”, Oikawa). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that as an alternative, if it was determined that Oikawa does not teach the aforementioned limitation, the instant patent application explicitly teaches that such a limitation is well-known in the art as the written description of the instant patent application explicitly states at para. [0074]: “Irradiation of sound waves can use a common device (a sound wave irradiator or a sound wave generator) that generates sound waves and irradiates an object with the sound waves. Examples of the sound wave irradiator include a sound wave transmitter, and a speaker equipped with a diaphragm or the like in a sound wave transmitter.” Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that if it was determined that the ultrasonic transmitter 6 of Oikawa does indeed touch the steel sheets, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the ultrasonic transmitter 6 of Oikawa with the Applicant Admitter Prior Art (Instant Patent Application, para. [0074]) of a well-known sound wave device (such as a common sound wave irradiator or a sound wave generator) which operates at the parameters of Oikawa detailed above/herein to perform the claimed function to reduce the operational costs by removing the need of a contact portion. As a further alternative regarding the aforementioned limitation, it must be stressed that the claims of the instant patent application are directed toward a method/process, and as such, it must be stressed that although the mere recitation of structure in a method claim does not render the claim improper or unstatutory, the patentability of method claims generally cannot be predicated solely on structural limitations recited therein (Ex parte Dammers, 155 USPQ 284 (Bd. App. 1961)). Patentability of a method cannot depend upon the apparatus used to perform the method, especially where, as here, it has been established that the method as claimed can be performed by the prior art as described above.
Oikawa does not explicitly teach “a sound pressure level on a surface of the steel sheet is 30 dB or more” and “residual hydrogen in the nugget is reduced”; however, it must be stressed that the written description of the instant patent application explicitly states that the aforementioned limitation is well known in the art by conceding that “commonly available” sound wave irradiators result in a sound pressure level of 140 db or less (““On the other hand, due to the performance of commonly available sound wave irradiators, the sound pressure level of the sound waves to be applied is usually 140 dB or less.”, para. [0064]”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Hideki is additionally cited herein in which the citation is directed toward the same problem of minimizing hydrogen within a weld which teaches: “It was confirmed that the noise level saturates when the hydrogen addition amount is 1% or less and is almost the same as the noise level without hydrogen addition. In this example, it was confirmed that the hydrogen addition amount was 1% or less and 75 dB or less. This brings about a significant improvement of the working environment and is a very useful effect in the industry.” Furthermore, FIG. 3 illustrates the relationship between the measured value of the noise level (dB) in relation to the amount of hydrogen.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Oikawa reference, such that “a sound pressure level on a surface of the steel sheet is 30 dB or more” and “residual hydrogen in the nugget is reduced”, as suggested and taught by Hideki, for the purpose of generating a predetermined amount of hydrogen in the formed weld/nugget of Oikawa.
With regard to claim 6, Oikawa teaches a method of manufacturing a weld joint (“In the method of improving the corrosion resistance, tensile strength and fatigue strength of welded joints formed by spot welding high strength plated steel sheets”, cl. 1) comprising: sandwiching two or more overlapped steel sheets (steel plates 1, FIG. 3) between a pair of welding electrodes (electrodes 2, FIG. 1), applying current to the steel sheets (1) while pressing the steel sheets (1), forming a nugget on overlapping surfaces of the steel sheets (1) to join the steel sheets (1) (“As shown in FIG. 2, the high strength plated steel plates 1 are overlapped with each other, energized while being pressed with a copper electrode 2 to form a melted portion between the steel plates, and after energization, the melted portion is cooled to solidify the nugget. 3 is formed.”), and after the joining, irradiating the nugget with sound waves having a frequency of 10 Hz to 100000 Hz (“Note that the frequency, amplitude, and transmission output of the ultrasonic wave used in the ultrasonic impact treatment need not be specified, but the ultrasonic wave having a frequency of 20-60 kHz, an amplitude of 20-40 μm, and a transmission output of 500-1500 W is used for the ultrasonic wave. It is desirable to perform sonic impact theory. If the frequency is lower than this, the noise during the ultrasonic impact treatment increases, and if it is higher than this, the scale of the apparatus becomes too large.”) (emphasis added).
Oikawa further teaches the limitation of “the sound wave irradiation is performed without contacting the steel sheets.” (“The present invention is characterized in that an ultrasonic impact treatment is performed on one part or both sides of the spot welded portion on the nugget 3 parts and the cracked part of the heat-affected part around the nugget..”, Oikawa). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that as an alternative, if it was determined that Oikawa does not teach the aforementioned limitation, the instant patent application explicitly teaches that such a limitation is well-known in the art as the written description of the instant patent application explicitly states at para. [0074]: “Irradiation of sound waves can use a common device (a sound wave irradiator or a sound wave generator) that generates sound waves and irradiates an object with the sound waves. Examples of the sound wave irradiator include a sound wave transmitter, and a speaker equipped with a diaphragm or the like in a sound wave transmitter.” Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that if it was determined that the ultrasonic transmitter 6 of Oikawa does indeed touch the steel sheets, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the ultrasonic transmitter 6 of Oikawa with the Applicant Admitter Prior Art (Instant Patent Application, para. [0074]) of a well-known sound wave device (such as a common sound wave irradiator or a sound wave generator) which operates at the parameters of Oikawa detailed above/herein to perform the claimed function to reduce the operational costs by removing the need of a contact portion. As a further alternative regarding the aforementioned limitation, it must be stressed that the claims of the instant patent application are directed toward a method/process, and as such, it must be stressed that although the mere recitation of structure in a method claim does not render the claim improper or unstatutory, the patentability of method claims generally cannot be predicated solely on structural limitations recited therein (Ex parte Dammers, 155 USPQ 284 (Bd. App. 1961)). Patentability of a method cannot depend upon the apparatus used to perform the method, especially where, as here, it has been established that the method as claimed can be performed by the prior art as described above.
Oikawa does not explicitly teach “a sound pressure level on a surface of the steel sheet is 30 dB or more” and “residual hydrogen in the nugget is reduced”; however, it must be stressed that the written description of the instant patent application explicitly states that the aforementioned limitation is well known in the art by conceding that “commonly available” sound wave irradiators result in a sound pressure level of 140 db or less (““On the other hand, due to the performance of commonly available sound wave irradiators, the sound pressure level of the sound waves to be applied is usually 140 dB or less.”, para. [0064]”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, Hideki is additionally cited herein in which the citation is directed toward the same problem of minimizing hydrogen within a weld which teaches: “It was confirmed that the noise level saturates when the hydrogen addition amount is 1% or less and is almost the same as the noise level without hydrogen addition. In this example, it was confirmed that the hydrogen addition amount was 1% or less and 75 dB or less. This brings about a significant improvement of the working environment and is a very useful effect in the industry.” Furthermore, FIG. 3 illustrates the relationship between the measured value of the noise level (dB) in relation to the amount of hydrogen.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Oikawa reference, such that “a sound pressure level on a surface of the steel sheet is 30 dB or more” and “residual hydrogen in the nugget is reduced”, as suggested and taught by Hideki, for the purpose of generating a predetermined amount of hydrogen in the formed weld/nugget of Oikawa.
With regard to claims 2 and 7, although the primary citation does not teach that the time for irradiation of the sound waves is 1 second or longer, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention made as a matter of routine experimentation and/or since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve a desired welding condition. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claims 3 and 8, Oikawa teaches at least one of the steel sheets has a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more (“It is not necessary to specifically limit the type of steel plate used in the present invention. A tensile strength of about 400 to 1700 MPa is sufficient….).
With regard to claims 4 and 9, Oikawa teaches at least one of the steel sheets (1) has a coating (“coating”) on at least one of the surface and the overlapping surface (“Next, chemical conversion treatment and electrodeposition coating were performed on these joints, and an SST test (JIS Z2371) was performed.”).
With regard to claims 5 and 10, Oikawa teaches the coating is a hot-dip galvanized coating or a galvannealed coating (“As shown in Table 1, various high-strength galvanized steel sheets (symbol: 590Y: 590 MPa class DP) having a plate thickness of 1.6 mm and a tensile strength of 590 to 980 MPa and subjected to alloying zinc plating were used as test materials. Type composite structure steel plate, 780Y: 780 MPa class DP type composite structure steel plate, 980Y: 980 MPa class DP type composite structure steel plate).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly presented prior art rejections.
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761