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 presents claims 1-7 as amended. Claims 1-7 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in overcoming the claim objections, rejections under 35 USC 112 (b), and the prior art rejections detailed in the last Office action.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-7 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 1, as amended, recites “wherein at least one opening…is provided in at least one of the first jig or the second jig” followed by “wherein the at least one opening includes a first opening that penetrates through the first jig in a thickness direction” which renders the claim indefinite as the two limitations have differing scopes and it is unclear as to the intended scope of the claim. For example, the claim requires at least one opening in either the first or second jig, which presents a broad scope. The claim then requires that the opening be in the first jig, which presents a narrower scope. Additionally, the former limitation allows for the opening to be present in the second jig (and not the first) such that it creates confusion by the latter limitation that specifically requires the opening to be in the first jig. As the claim states “at least one opening” it stands to reason that the scope includes situations in which a single opening is present, yet the claim provides an opening in both the first and second jig.
Claim 5, as amended, recites “the first opening is provided on the first jig at a second surface side of the first jig” and “the at least one opening includes a second opening provided on the second jig at a second surface side of the first jig” which creates confusion as the claim recites two second surface sides of the first jig and it is unclear in what way the two second surfaces are intended to be different from one another.
Claim 5, as amended, recites “the at least one opening includes a second opening provided on the second jig at a second surface side of the first jig” followed by “the second surface side of the second jig is opposite from the first surface side of the second jig” which renders the claim indefinite as “the second surface side of the second jig” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear if “the second surface side” should refer to the “second surface side of the first jig.”
Claim 5, as amended, recites that “the at least one opening includes a second opening provided on the second jig at a second surface side of the first jig” followed by “the second opening corresponds to a portion of the desired welded portion of the part” and ”the second opening is positioned in a portion of the second jig not corresponding to the first opening and the transmissive aperture.” Claim 1 requires that the at least one opening corresponds to the desired weld portions of the part. As claim 5 includes all the limitations of claim 1, the claim requires that both the first and second opening correspond to the same desired welded portion of the part. Based on this, the claim is unclear as it requires that the second opening is at a position not corresponding to the first opening. In other words, it is unclear in what way, if any, the second opening can be positioned in a manner not corresponding to the first opening and corresponding to the portion of the desired welded portion of the part. As best understood, in order for the second opening to be positioned in a manner not corresponding to the first opening, the second opening would also not correspond to the desired welded portion.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 inherit the above deficiencies due to their respective dependency.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazoe (US2020/0139486, published 05/07/2020) in view of Ausilio (US 4847467).
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 stacking and welding a plurality of members together (members 52), the jig device having a first side (upper side of 101) and a second side (lower side of 101) that is opposite from the first side, the jig device comprising:
a first jig (301) positioned on the first side (upper side) of the jig device (101) including a first joint face on a first surface side of the first jig (first joint face taken as the lower side defining a surface 302 that contacts upper member 52), the first joint face is positioned to face toward the second side (lower side) of the jig device (101), the first joint face is configured to contact an exposed outer surface of a member of the plurality of members on the first side of the jig device (jig 301 has a lower outer surface 302 that contacts an external surface of one of the members 52-para. 0034),
a second jig (201) positioned on the second side (lower side) of jig device (101), the second jig including a second joint face on a first surface side of the second jig (second joint face taken as the upper side of jig 201 defining surface 202), the second joint face is positioned to face toward the first side (upper side) of the jig device (101), the second joint face is configured to contact an exposed outer surface of another member of the plurality of members on the second side of the jig device (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 and clamp 451) adapted to sandwich the first jig (301) on the first side (upper side) of the jig device (101) and the second jig (201) on the second side (lower side) of the jig device (101) together with the plurality of members in a stacking direction of the plurality of members (52) (para. 0035 and 0037),
wherein at least one opening (303) corresponding to desired welded portions (WP) of the part is provided in at least one of the first jig (301) or the second jig, wherein the at least one opening (303) includes a first opening that penetrates through the first jig (301) in a thickness direction (para. 0034 and 0042).
Shimazoe is silent on wherein the second jig has a transmissive aperture at a portion of the second joint face that is aligned with the first opening in a horizontal direction with respect to the first joint face of the first jig.
Ausilio relates to a clamp used in laser welding parts or sheets together (1:5-10) (Figs. 1-3; parts 14/16 to be welded clamped together by first jig 12 and second jig 80) in which at least one opening includes a first opening (18/22) that penetrates through the first jig (12) in a thickness direction (3:47-53).
Ausilio teaches wherein the second jig (80) has a transmissive aperture (centrally located recess 82) [The plain and ordinary meaning of “transmissive aperture,” consistent with the manner in which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand in light of the specification is, “an opening or open space” “that transmits or serves to transmit.” See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aperture and merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transmissive viewed on 5/18/2026. In this case, recess 82 is described in Ausilio as providing “a relief or opening to prevent welding of the metal sheet to the tool fixture in which the clamp apparatus 10 is mounted” and which “has an open ended, outwardly extending conical shape” 5:29-37. Recess 82 being an opening having an open ended conical, or any other geometric, shape that is aligned with the opening in the first jig to allow the laser beam 86 to weld the parts 14/16 together without welding the clamp components means that such recess is an opening that allows for the beam to be transmitted, at least partially.] at a portion of the second joint face (face in contact with lower surface of member 16) that is aligned with the first opening in a horizontal direction with respect to the first joint face (face of 12 in contact with upper surface of 14) of the first jig (Fig. 3 shows opening 22 in the first jig 12 being aligned with recess 82 in the second jig 80 in the horizontal 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 Ausilio, by adding to the second jig of Shimazoe with the aperture aligned with the first opening of Ausilio, in order to provide an arrangement that would permit laser welding of the members while preventing the member in contact with the second jig from being welded to the second jig.
Regarding claim 2, the primary combination teaches the jig device of claim 1 and further teaches [Shimazoe] wherein the jig clamp comprises:
a clamp member (351) on the first side (upper side) of the jig device (101) that contacts a first outer face on a second surface (upper surface) of the first jig (301), the second surface side of the first jig is opposite from the first surface side of the first jig (upper and lower sides of 301); and
a clamp member (451) on the second side (lower side) of the jig device (101) that contacts a second outer face on an outer a second surface side of the second jig (lower side surface of jig 201), the second surface side of the second jig is opposite from the first surface side of the second jig (upper and lower sides of jig 201).
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 Ausilio (US 4847467) and in further view of Buchheit (US2005/0045693).
Regarding claims 3-4, the primary combination teaches substantially the jig device, as applied in claim 1, including [Shimazoe] wherein a second surface side of the first jig is opposite from the first surface side of the first jig, and wherein a second surface side of the second jig is opposite from the first surface side of the second jig (taken as the upper and lower surfaces of jigs 301 and 201).
Modified Shimazoe is silent on pressurizing parts being provided on an outer periphery side of the plurality of members in a surface direction, the pressurizing parts being configured to pressurize the first jig from the second surface side of the first jig and the second jig from the second surface side of the second jig (claim 3) and wherein spacers are provided at positions of the pressurizing parts in the surface direction and between the first jig and the second jig in the stacking direction of the plurality of members (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 configured 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, as modified by Ausilio, with Buchheit, by adding to the clamping jig for clamping the two jigs together of modified 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, Ausilio, 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 configured to pressurize the first jig from the second surface side of the first jig and the second jig from the second surface side of the second jig (Modified 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 first jig and the second jig 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose a welding jig device having the combination of features required in claim 5 including “a second opening provided on the second jig at a second surface side of the first jig,” “the second opening corresponds to a portion of the desired welded portions of the part,” and “the second opening is positioned in a portion of the second jig not corresponding to the first opening and the transmissive aperture.”
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 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
Prosecution Insights