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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the opening on the one side of the jig on the one side” is redundant and should have the second “on the one side” removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein pressurizing parts are provided on an outer periphery side of the plurality of members in a surface direction, the pressurizing parts being adapted to pressurize the jig on the one side and the jig on the other side from the outer surface side in the stacking direction” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the pressurizing parts are a component of the jig(s), the clamp, or of the plurality of members.
Claim 3 recites “the outer surface side in the stacking direction” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1 recites “outer surface sides.” As claim 1 makes mention of multiple outer surface sides and claim 3 refers to a singular surface side, “the outer surface side” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear which outer surface side is being referenced. Further, it is unclear if the “outer surface side” refers to an outer surface side of either jig or to the plurality of members.
Claim 4, being dependent on claim 3, inherits the above deficiency.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the opening on the one side of the jig on the one side corresponds to a portion of the desired welded portions of the part, and the jig on the other side includes an opening on…” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “wherein an opening corresponding to desired welded portions of the part is provided in at least one of the jig on the one side or the jig on the other side.” Claim 1, therefor, requires an opening to be provided in at least one of the jig on the one side or the jig on the other side. As such, “the opening on the one side of the jig” is not clearly expressed as the scope. The Examiner recommends amending the claim language to recite “wherein the opening is provided on in the jig on the one side,” or words to that effect.
Claim 5 recites “the jig on the other side includes an opening on another side in a portion not corresponding to the opening on the one side of the desired welded portions of the part” which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, recites “wherein an opening corresponding to desired welded portions of the part is provided in at least one of the jig on the one side or the jig on the other side.” Claim 1 allows, for instance, the opening to be on either jig or on both. It is unclear if the opening on “another side” is intended to refer to the opening recited in claim 1 or to a different opening.
Claims 6-7, being dependent on claim 3, inherit the above deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-2 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimazoe (US2020/0139486, published 05/07/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Shimazoe teaches a jig device (Title; laser welding jig device) (Para. 0002) (Fig. 1; jig device 101) used for forming a part by overlaying a plurality of members one on top of the other and welding the plurality of members together (members 52), the jig device comprising:
a jig (301) on one side (upper side) including a joint face on the one side, the joint face on the one side being adapted to contact one face of faces exposed on outer surface sides of the plurality of members that are overlaid one on top of the other (jig 301 has a lower outer surface 302 that contacts an external surface of one of the members 52-para. 0034),
a jig (201) on another side (lower side) including a joint face on the other side, the joint face on the other side being adapted to contact another face of the faces exposed on the outer surface sides of the plurality of members (jig 201 has a upper outer surface 202 that contacts an external surface of one of the members 52-para. 0032), and
a jig clamp (clamp 351) adapted to sandwich the jig on the one side (301) and the jig on the other side (201) together with the plurality of members (52) in a stacking direction of the plurality of members (52) (para. 0035),
wherein an opening (303) corresponding to desired welded portions (WP) of the part is provided in at least one of the jig on the one side (301) or the jig on the other side.
Regarding claim 2, Shimazoe teaches the jig device of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the jig clamp comprises: a clamp member on the one side that contacts a face on an outer surface side of the jig on the one side (portion that is hooked on the upper surface of jig 301); and a clamp member on another side that contacts a face on an outer surface side of the jig on the other side (portion that is attached to jig 201) (para. 0035; “The main clamper 351 is a mechanism for clamping the main jig 301 to the base jig 201 and principally contains a clamper 352. The clamper 352 has a clamp claw 353 attached to the base jig 201 and extending in a horizontal direction which is hooked on the upper surface of the main jig 301 and allowed to exert a pulling force (indicated by void arrows in FIG. 1) directed downward. Thereby, the main jig 301 is clamped and hence the pair of separators 51 is held between the main jig 301 and the base jig 201.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shimazoe teaches the jig device of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the opening on the one side of the jig (301) on the one side (opening 303; Fig. 1 and 3C) corresponds to a portion of the desired welded portions (WP; Fig. 1 and 3D) of the part, and the jig (201) on the other side includes an opening (203) on another side in a portion not corresponding to the opening on the one side of the desired welded portions of the part (Fig. 1, 3A-D; opening 203 is on jig 201 on a side not corresponding to opening 303 on the side of WP).
Regarding claim 7, Shimazoe teaches the jig device of claim 5 and further teaches wherein the jig clamp (351) contacts faces on the outer surface sides of the jig (301) on the one side and the jig (201) on the other side at positions where at least one of the opening (303_ on the one side or the opening on the other side is not provided (as detailed in claim 1 above; See also Figs. 1 and 3A-3D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe in view of Buchheit (US2005/0045693).
Regarding claims 3-4, Shimazoe teaches substantially the jig device, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein pressurizing parts are provided on an outer periphery side of the plurality of members in a surface direction, the pressurizing parts being adapted to pressurize the jig on the one side and the jig on the other side from the outer surface side in the stacking direction (claim 3) and wherein spacers are provided at positions of the pressurizing parts in the surface direction and between the jig on the one side and the jig on the other side in the stacking direction (claim 4).
Buchheit relates to a jig device (Fig. 2; 20) for a workpiece (8/4) being welded (via 10) (see also para. 0001). Buchheit teaches using pressurizing parts (springs 36 or other pressure applying devices that apply a force against the workpiece-para. 0023 and 0038) are provided on an outer periphery side of the plurality of members in a surface direction (Fig. 2 shows springs 36 provided on the upper outer surface of member 8), the pressurizing parts (36) being adapted to pressurize the jig from the outer surface side in a stacking direction (para. 0038; “ The pressure applying devices 36 applying clamping pressure to the work piece 4 via the pads 32 suitably may include any type of pressure applying device other than springs 36, such as resilient materials, hydraulic pistons, pneumatic bladders, or any other suitable pressure applying device. A resilient material may include, for example, a soft plastic or rubber material. It will be appreciated that springs 36, even without further shimming, provide relatively even pressure when several spring-loaded pads 32 project from the clamp bars 22 spanning a work piece 4. As the clamp bar assembly 20 is held against the work piece (or vice versa) 4 with the bars 22 spanning the work piece 4, the springs 36 are placed in compression applying clamping force against the work piece 4 on both sides of the joint 7 being worked on. It will be appreciated the jam nuts 31 keep the keeper 30 in place when the assembly 20 is removed from the work piece 4.”) and wherein spacers (pads 32) are provided at positions of the pressurizing parts (36) in the surface direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimazoe with Buchheit, by adding to the clamping jig for clamping the two jigs together of Shimazoe, with the pressurizing parts and spacers taught by Buchheit, for in doing so would provide clamping between the jigs and the workpiece that allows for deflection to be compensated (para. 0037 of Buchheit detailing using springs, or pressure applying devices to providing varying degrees of clamping force that allows for the compensation for deflection).
The combination of Shimazoe and Buchheit teaches each claimed limitation including the pressurizing parts (36 of Buchheit) being provided on an outer periphery side of the plurality of members in a surface direction (Shimazoe as modified to include springs 36 of Buchheit, which would be provided on an outer periphery side of the members), the pressurizing parts being adapted to pressurize the jig on the one side and the jig on the other side from the outer surface side in the stacking direction (Shimazoe as modified to include the springs 36 of Buchheit to provide a force onto the jigs clamping the members together) and wherein spacers (32 of Buchheit) are provided at positions of the pressurizing parts in the surface direction and between the jig on the one side and the jig on the other side in the stacking direction (Shimazoe, as modified above, would present an arrangement in which the clamping jig includes the springs 36 and pads 32 of Buchheit and which would exert a force onto the jigs in the stacking direction in order to clamp the members together).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe.
Regarding claim 6, Shimazoe teaches the jig device of claim 1, but is silent on the desired welded portion that are formed through the opening on the one side and the opening on the other side form annular closed paths. Shimazoe does not disclose the shape of the welded portions, with respect to the relied upon embodiment (Figs. 1 and 3A-D). However, Shimazoe does disclose that the welded position WP is irradiated with the laser beam through a light guiding path that is annularly formed (para. 0055).
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is directed to the manner in which the welded portion is carried out and, specifically, to the shape of the welded portion intended to be formed by the welding process while using the claimed device.
A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
In Otto, the claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers (i.e., a particular device) and a method of making the core member (i.e., a particular method of making that device) and “not to a method of curling hair wherein th[e] particular device is used.” 312 F.2d at 940. The court held that patentability of the claims cannot be based “upon a certain procedure for curling hair using th[e] device and involving a number of steps in the process.” The court noted that “the process is irrelevant as is the recitation involving the hair being wound around the core” in terms of determining patentability of the particular device. Id. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In Young, a claim to a machine for making concrete beams included a limitation to the concrete reinforced members made by the machine as well as the structural elements of the machine itself. The court held that the inclusion of the article formed within the body of the claim did not, without more, make the claim patentable.
In In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), an apparatus claim recited “[a] taping machine comprising a supporting structure, a brush attached to said supporting structure, said brush being formed with projecting bristles which terminate in free ends to collectively define a surface to which adhesive tape will detachably adhere, and means for providing relative motion between said brush and said supporting structure while said adhesive tape is adhered to said surface.” An obviousness rejection was made over a reference to Kienzle which taught a machine for perforating sheets. The court upheld the rejection stating that “the references in claim 1 to adhesive tape handling do not expressly or impliedly require any particular structure in addition to that of Kienzle.” Id. at 580-81. The perforating device had the structure of the taping device as claimed, the difference was in the use of the device, and “the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Id. at 580.
In this case, as detailed above, claim 6 defines the shape of the welded portions that occurs during welding process and is not directed to the device itself. As such, claim 6 is understood to refer to the material or article worked upon by the claimed device and to the manner or method in which welding occurs, which does not impart patentability over Shimazoe.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 of Shimazoe (annotated to show annular welded portions)
Additionally, Shimazoe teaches an alternative embodiment (Figs. 7-9) in which a jig device (11) clamps the workpiece (1/2) between a first jig (13) and a second jig (14) via clamping jig (15). Shimazoe teaches that the workpiece is welded (welds 5) to have a plurality of through-holes (3 and 4) when joining the members (1/2) together. Shimazoe teaches that the welded portions (5) form annular closed paths (as shown above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimazoe (embodiment of Figs. 1 and 3A-D) with Shimazoe (Figs. 7-9), by replacing the shape of the welded portion of Shimazoe (Fig. 1), being inherently of some shape), with the annular shape taught by Shimazoe (Figs. 7-9), for in doing so would merely provide a change in shape of the welded portion, which is matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed welded portion was significant. See MPEP 2144.04-IV-B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761