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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Ichikawa fails to disclose,
“a pressure cylinder mounted on the power supply; and
a piston rod included in the pressure cylinder,
wherein the welding tip adjuster is connected to the piston rod so as to be movable forwards and rearwards.”
However; Ichikawa discloses, “Pressurized air from an air pressure source 49 is introduced into ports 13, 14 via an electromagnetic valve (direction switching valve) 48. Thus, in this pressing cylinder 1, a piston 15 in a cylinder tube 18 is pressed by the air pressure introduced through the ports 13, 14 so that the cylinder rod 11 is moved to open or close the gap between the electrodes 8, 9. The opening or closing of the gap between the electrodes 8, 9 is made by the action of the direction switching valve 48. The piston 45 is fastened onto the cylinder rod 11 by a nut 16, and an O-ring 17 is provided around the piston 15 for sealing purpose. Although not shown, similar sealing O-rings are provided on both sides of the cylinder tube 18. The pressing cylinder 1 is substantially identical in construction with the prior art pressing cylinders 1 except for the cylinder rod 11. (Col. 6:39-56)” (emphasis added) as well as 19 being indicated as the “welding transformer” (e.g., the power supply) and therefore Ichikawa clearly discloses, “a pressure cylinder (1) mounted on the power supply; and
a piston rod (11) included in the pressure cylinder,
wherein the welding tip adjuster is connected to the piston rod so as to be movable forwards and rearwards. (Col. 6:39-56)” as claimed by the applicant.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa et al. (US Patent 5,412,172 A) in view of Rohner (US PGPUB 2004/0016723 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ichikawa et al. discloses a two-way welding gun apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a power supply (19, 20) configured to supply power (Col. 5:46-53) for spot welding;
an arm (3) connected to a front portion of the power supply (Fig. 1);
a holder (4) mounted on one end portion of the arm (Fig. 1);
a fixed welding tip (6, 8) mounted on the holder; and
a pressure cylinder (1) mounted on the power supply (Ichikawa et al., Fig. 1),
a piston rod (11) included in the pressure cylinder,
wherein the welding tip is connected to the piston rod so as to be movable forwards and rearwards (Col. 6:39-56)
However, Ichikawa et al. does not disclose, "a welding tip adjuster configured to selectively
rotate a first welding tip or a second welding tip to a position in line with the fixed welding tip
depending on a shape of an object for the spot welding."
Rohner teaches, in the field of spot welding ([0003]) a welding tip adjuster (3) configured to
selectively rotate a first welding tip (12.1-12.6) or a second welding tip (12.1-12.6) to a position in line
with the fixed welding tip ("The readjusting unit preferably acts on the turret unit as a whole. Therefore
it is not necessary for each tool, e.g. welding tool, or each electrode to be provided with a readjusting
unit. If the turret unit is formed on the side of the tool arranged in a fixed position and if it is arranged at
the bottom relative to the Z-axis, the readjusting unit preferably acts on the top, movable tool." [0018])
to a position in line with the fixed welding tip depending on a shape of an object ([0009]) for the spot
welding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the movable tool or welding tip of Ichikawa et al. to have the readjusting unit with the turret of
Rohner et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that, "The operation or programming of the welding or joining unit according to the
invention is simpler compared with a solution having a plurality of joining tools arranged side by side,
since the spatially offset arrangement of the tools does not have to be taken into account during the
programming." [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ichikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the welding tip adjuster includes:
a base block (Rohner, 4; Ichikawa et al., 5) mounted on the piston rod (Ichikawa et al., Fig. 1);
a rotary block (Rohner, 9) rotatably mounted on the base block by a hinge pin (Rohner, [0057] "The (prismatic) core is firmly connected to a shaft (not shown here)");
the first welding tip mounted on a first side of the rotary block (Rohner, 11.1 for example); the second welding tip mounted on a second side of the rotary block (Rohner, 11.2 for example); and
an actuator (Rohner, 10 "NC-controller motor) connected to the rotary block to selectively
rotate the rotary block to a first position (Rohner, [0058]) where the first welding tip is in line with the fixed welding tip, or to rotate the rotary block to a second position (Rohner, [0058]) where the second welding tip is in line with the fixed welding tip.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the first welding tip has a diameter equal or similar to a diameter of the fixed welding tip
(Rohner, Fig. 3a-3b).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 1 as above,
wherein the second welding tip has a diameter smaller than a diameter of the fixed welding tip (Rohner,
Fig. 4a-4c; [0032] "longitudinally oriented bay-type electrodes").
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 5 as above,
wherein the second welding tip includes an end portion having a pointed shape and includes an end
surface having a rectangular shape (Rohner, Fig. 4a-4c; [0032] "longitudinally oriented bay-type
electrodes"), through a cutting process (the Examiner notes that this a product-by-process claim and
unless there is a structural difference between an electrode having a rectangular shape as in Rohner the
claimed electrode made by "a cutting process"; see MPEP 2113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 3 as above.
However, neither Ishikawa et al., Rohner, nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest,
"wherein the rotary block includes a first rotary stopper mounted at a predetermined position at a side
thereof, to define a position where the first welding tip is in line with the fixed welding tip, and the base
block includes a first fixed stopper mounted at an upper position thereof, the first fixed stopper being
brought into contact with the first rotary stopper."
Claim 8 would be allowable based on its dependency.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 3 as above.
However, neither Ishikawa et al., Rohner, nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest,
"wherein the rotary block includes a second rotary stopper mounted at a predetermined position at a
side thereof, to define a position where the second welding tip is in line with the fixed welding tip, and
the base block includes a second fixed stopper mounted at a lower position thereof, the second fixed
stopper being brought into contact with the second rotary stopper."
Claim 10 would be allowable based on its dependency.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ishikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 3 as above.
However, neither Ishikawa et al., Rohner, nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest,
"wherein the actuator includes: a support bracket mounted on a lower portion of the base block; a
tilting cylinder tiltably hinged to the support bracket; and a push-pull piston rod, the push-pull piston
rod being a piston rod of the tilting cylinder, hinged to a lower portion of a front end side of the rotary
block."
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights