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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 4 and line 6 both recite, “are easily spot welded to each other” and therefore includes the purported merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.”
PNG
media_image2.png
447
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 reference 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 2, the combination of Ichikawa et al. and Rohner teach all of claim 1 as above, further including:
a pressure cylinder (Ichikawa et al., 1) mounted on the power supply (Ichikawa et al., Fig. 1),
wherein the pressure cylinder includes a piston rod (Ichikawa et al., 11) to which the welding tip adjuster is connected to be movable forwards and rearwards thereof (Ichikawa et al., Fig. 1).
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,
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image3.png
398
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
KR 102220705 B1 discloses a spot welding robot with rotary tip.
PNG
media_image4.png
256
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
KR 20220156394 A discloses a spot welding apparatus with rotating turrets for different welding tips.
PNG
media_image5.png
264
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
KR 19990029341 U discloses welding tips for spot welders.
PNG
media_image6.png
232
188
media_image6.png
Greyscale
CN 103331511 A discloses a welding method and application and welding head thereof.
PNG
media_image7.png
324
518
media_image7.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2016/0346865 A1 discloses a resistance spot welding workpiece stack-ups of different combination of steel workpieces and aluminum workpieces.
PNG
media_image8.png
226
338
media_image8.png
Greyscale
KR 20220117165 A discloses a cutter for dressing electrode tip and cutter assembly including the same.
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