DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 13-16 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Election
Applicant’s election of Group II (claims 7-9) in the reply filed on 10/16/2024 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election of Species (a)(ii) (claims 3, 11) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/16/2024 and 11/13/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11, 13-16 is/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.
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure as originally filed only provides support for welds with a “leading end region” with “low welding strength”. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for a “leading end region of the stirred weld” having a “lower strength than other parts of the stirred weld”.
Claims 8-9, 11, 13-16 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• KAY (US 2005/0139640),
in view of VICHNIAKOV (US 2020/0307111),
and in view of MAHONEY ‘2003/0042291,
and in view of "Effective notch stress and critical distance method to estimate the fatigue life of T and overlap friction stir welded joints" (hereinafter EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS).
KAY ‘640 discloses articles comprising a workpiece comprising two or more structural members bonded by friction stir welding (FSW) (corresponding to the recited “friction stir spot welding”), wherein the workpiece comprises:
• a first structural member (132, 232) (e.g., flat plate-shaped, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “first member having a first thickness”) which can comprise non-metal materials (e.g., polymers, etc.);
• a second structural member (134, 234) (e.g., flat plate-shaped, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”) which can comprise non-metal materials (e.g., polymers, etc.);
wherein the first and second structural members are stacked to form an interface (136) (corresponding to the recited “faying surface at which the first member and the second member are in contact”) and the ends of the first and second structural members are overlapped to form a lap joint (100, 200) bonded together by a friction stir weld joint region (102/104, 202/204) that extends through both the first and second structural members, wherein the area of the weld joint is not required to be the same as the area of the interface (136) (corresponding to the recite “faying surface at which the first member and the second member are in contact but are not welded together”). The bottom end of the weld joint is positioned away from the interface (136) between the two structural members (132, 134).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
305
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The workpiece optionally contains more than two structural members (e.g., containing a third structural member; etc.) wherein the more than two structural members are joined together by the same lap joint (100, 200) bonded together by the same friction stir weld joint region (102/104, 202/204). (entire document, e.g., Figure 5, 8, etc.; paragraph 0025-0027, 0031-0032, 0041, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss thermoplastic resin moldings or the recited stress concentrating part.
VICHNIAKNOV ‘111 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize thermoplastic materials to form molded components (e.g., plate-shaped, etc.) which can be bonded together in an overlapping position by friction stir welding (FSW). The reference further discloses that it is known in the art to incorporate reinforcing fibers (e.g., carbon fibers, glass fibers, etc.) into thermoplastic components bonded by FSW in order to improve mechanical properties (e.g., strength, etc.) and provide high service temperature performance. (Figure 4b, etc.; paragraph 0005, 0014, 0017, 0019, 0028, 0033, etc.)
MAHONEY ‘291 discloses that it is well known in the art that friction stir welding (FSW) of a overlapping first workpiece (11a) and a second workpiece (11b) can cause an “uplift” of material at the interface (13) between the first and second workpieces (corresponding to the recited “faying surface at which the first member and the second member are in contact”), resulting in the formation of an “interface notch” (21) at the edge of the weld joint in the region of the interface (13),
PNG
media_image3.png
492
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the “interface notch” (21) is a region of stress concentration, and wherein other portions of the first workpiece (11a) and a second workpiece (11b) are in contact but are not welded together (corresponding to the recite “faying surface at which the first member and the second member are in contact but are not welded together”). The reference further discloses that FSW joints bonding two overlapping workpieces typically have a bottom end portion which is located away from the interface (13) or the “interface notch” (21) (corresponding to the recited “end region of the stirred weld” which is “disposed away from the stress concentrating part”) (Figure 3, etc.; paragraph 0003-0004, 0007-0008, 0034, etc.)
EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS provides evidence that the “interface notch” is a general characteristic of friction stir welding (FSW), and is most likely to be a location of fatigue failure and/or cracking, wherein the “interface notch” is commonly a “pull-up” of the interface between two overlapped components being welded together at the edge of the weld, wherein the “interface notch” is an region of stress concentration. (Figure 1-2, 4, etc.; Abstract; section 4, etc.)
Regarding claims 7-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known polymers (e.g., thermoplastic resins as disclosed in VICHNIAKNOV ‘111) to form the first, second, and optional additional polymeric structural members (e.g., plates, etc.) used to form FSW-bonded workpieces which contain a lap joint formed from the overlapping first, second, and optionally additional polymeric structural members which are bonded together by a FSW region which penetrates through the entirety of the overlapped structural members in order to produce useful delamination-resistant composite thermoplastic articles.
Further regarding claim 7, since: (i) KAY ‘640 discloses weld joints which extend through the second structural member of an overlapping joint (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”); and (ii) MAHONEY ‘291 and EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS disclose the “interface notch” regions which concentrate stress (corresponding to the recited “stress concentrating part”) are generally located at the intersection of the weld joint and the interface between the upper member (corresponding to the recited “first member having a first thickness”) and the lower member (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”) of an overlapping joint; the bottom end of the weld joints in KAY ‘640 (corresponding to the recited “leading end region of the stirred weld”) are separated “corresponding to the recited “disposed away”) from an “interface notch” generated by the FSW process which is located at the interface between the upper and lower member (corresponding to the recited “stress concentrating part located at an intersection of the faying surface and a peripheral surface of the stirred weld”).
Further regarding claim 7, since the weld joints of KAY ‘640 can be formed from one side (e.g., the upper surface of the first structural member) of the overlapped first and second structural members, the Examiner has reason to believe that the weld joints of KAY ‘640 formed from the upper surface of the first structural member would have bottom end portions at the lower surface of the second structural member which can exhibit different (e.g., lesser) strength than other portions of the weld joint due to reduced mixing and/or plasticization at the terminal end of the welding pin (124) (relative to the middle and upper portion of the weld) as recited in claim 7, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated one or more additional thermoplastic structural members between the first and second structural members in KAY ‘640 in order to: (i) join multiple structural members together; and/or to provide additional thickness and/or reinforcement in the lap joint region.
Regarding claims 14-15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated known reinforcing fibers (e.g., continuous fibers, etc.) in the first and second structural members in KAY ‘640 made from thermoplastic resins (as suggested in VICHNIAKNOV ‘111) in order to improve mechanical properties (e.g., stiffness, strength, flexural modulus, etc.) and/or improve high temperature performance.
Regarding claim 16, since: (i) KAY ‘640 disclose weld joints which extend through the lower member of an overlapping joint (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”); and (ii) MAHONEY ‘291 and EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS disclose the “interface notch” regions which concentrate stress (corresponding to the recited “stress concentrating part”) are generally located at the intersection of the weld joint and the interface between the upper member (corresponding to the recited “first member having a first thickness”) and the lower member (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”); the bottom end of the weld joints in KAY ‘640 (corresponding to the recited “leading end region of the stirred weld”) would be separated from the “interface notch” located at the interface between the upper and lower member by a welded joint section extends the full thickness of the lower member (corresponding to the recited “vertical welded section of the stirred weld that has a length corresponding to the second thickness”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• KAY (US 2005/0139640), in view of VICHNIAKOV (US 2020/0307111), and in view of MAHONEY ‘2003/0042291, and in view of "Effective notch stress and critical distance method to estimate the fatigue life of T and overlap friction stir welded joints" (hereinafter EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS),
as applied to claim 7 above,
and further in view of HOVANSKI ET AL (US 2022/0143738).
HOVANSKI ET AL ‘738 discloses that it is well known in the art that frictional stir spot welding (FSW) can be used to bond an overlapped first component (102) and second component (104), wherein the first component (102) and the second component (104) have different thicknesses (corresponding to the recited “the second thickness is larger than the first thickness”). (paragraph 0039, etc.)
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second structural members which have different thicknesses (e.g., a second structural member with a second thickness (t2) which is greater than the first structural member with a first thickness (t1); a second structural member with a second thickness (t2) which is less than the first structural member with a first thickness (t1); etc.) as suggested as HOVANSKI ET AL ‘738 to form the overlapped FSW-bonded workpieces of KAY ‘640 based on the specific performance requirements (e.g., strength, flexibility, visual appearance, material costs, etc.) for specific applications (e.g., a relatively thin decorative skin as the first structural member applied to a relatively thick, mechanically stronger substrate made of less aesthetically pleasing and/or cheaper material as the second structural member; etc.).
Further regarding claim 11, since: (i) KAY ‘640 discloses weld joints which extend through the second structural member of an overlapping joint (corresponding to the recited “second member having a second thickness”); in the case of a relatively thin first structural member and an relatively thick second structural member (i.e., t2 > t1), the weld joints in KAY ‘640 would fully penetrate a relatively thin first structural member, and also penetrate a relatively thick second structural member, thereby producing a weld joint which has a depth (d2) corresponding to the thickness (t2) of the relatively thick second structural member, wherein (d2 = t2) > t1 (corresponding to the recited “the stirred weld... reaches a depth corresponding to the first thickness or larger in the second member”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• KAY (US 2005/0139640), in view of VICHNIAKOV (US 2020/0307111), and in view of MAHONEY ‘2003/0042291, and in view of "Effective notch stress and critical distance method to estimate the fatigue life of T and overlap friction stir welded joints" (hereinafter EFFECTIVE NOTCH STRESS),
as applied to claim 7 above,
and further in view of CN 106862749 A (JI-CN ‘749).
JI-CN ‘749 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize overflow material plasticized from friction stir spot welding (FSW) of overlapping first component (2) and second component (3) to backfill or refill the weld area after weld-formation and retraction of the stirring needle so that the overflow material contacts the surface of the first component (2) (corresponding to the recited “an overflow material on contacting the stir weld which fills in a plunging region at the stir weld and contacts edges of the first member”) in order to avoid depressions at weld locations. (paragraph 0008, 0010, 0017-0020, etc.)
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known FSW process which utilizes overflow generated during weld formation to backfill or refill the weld site (as disclosed in JI-CN ‘749) to form the overlapped FSW-bonded workpieces of KAY ‘640
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 07/14/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HARUNA ET AL (US 2024/0316873) disclose overlapping members bonded together by friction stir spot welding.
VAN TOOREN (US 2019/0134918) disclose welded thermoplastic components containing continuous fibers.
PRICE ET AL (US 2023/0047903) disclose FSW-bonded multilayer articles
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 11, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787