CTNF 18/143,929 CTNF 101478 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The specification appears to contain an inconsistency regarding the identification of the “first process” and the “second process.” For example, paragraph [0006] and claim 1 indicate that the “first process” corresponds to the energization process and that the “second process” corresponds to the process after stopping energization while maintaining pressurization. However, paragraph [0044] states, “the preloading process P10 is also referred to as a first process,” and “the energization process P20 is also referred to as a second process.” The examiner suggests this inconsistency in the specification should be reviewed and corrected. In paragraph [0066], the term “range ID” appears inconsistent with the subsequent definition of ID as a distance between the center position and the interface farthest from the center position. The examiner suggests “range ID” should read “distance D” for consistency and clarity. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “thickness estimation process” in claim 1; and “diameter estimation process” in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Regarding the term, “thickness estimation process” in claim 1, this limitation recites the function of estimating a nugget thickness without reciting sufficient acts for performing the recited function. The recited function is estimating a nugget thickness. The corresponding acts are described, for example in paragraph [0066], which states “the estimation unit 82 estimates the nugget thickness NT by using the expansion amount, the contraction amount, and the electric resistance value calculated in advance and the nugget thickness estimation equation (1).” The corresponding acts further include obtaining the nugget thickness using equation (1) disclosed in paragraph [0060]: NT=C 1× E+C 2× S+C 3× R+C 4, where E is the expansion amount, S is the contraction amount, and R is the electric resistance value. Paragraph [0082] further discloses, “[when] estimating each of the nugget thickness estimation formula (1) …, at least the expansion amount and the electric resistance value are used.” Accordingly, the term “thickness estimation process” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding acts described in the specification for estimating a nugget thickness using at least expansion amount and the electric resistance value, including estimating the nugget thickness NT in accordance with the nugget thickness estimation equation (1), and equivalents thereof. Claims 2-6 are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to its dependency from claim 1. Regarding the term, “diameter estimation process” in claim 1, this limitation recites the function of estimating a nugget diameter without reciting sufficient acts for performing the recited function. The recited function is estimating a nugget diameter. The corresponding acts are described, for example in paragraph [0067], which states “the estimation unit 82 estimates the nugget diameter ND by using the expansion amount, the contraction amount, and the electric resistance value calculated in advance and the nugget diameter estimation equation (2).” The corresponding acts further include obtaining the nugget diameter using equation (2) disclosed in paragraph [0060]: ND=C5×E+C6×S+C7×R+C8 , where E is the expansion amount, S is the contraction amount, and R is the electric resistance value. The corresponding acts further include determining whether the nugget N has reached the interface, as described in paragraph [0066], which states “the estimation unit 82 determines whether or not the nugget N has reached the interface … [and] estimates that the nugget N has reached the interface when the length of half of the nugget thickness NT is longer than the range ID.” Paragraph [0082] further discloses, “[w]hen estimating … the nugget diameter estimation formula (2), at least the expansion amount and the electric resistance value are used.” Accordingly, the term “diameter estimation process” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover the corresponding acts described in the specification for estimating a nugget diameter using at least expansion amount and the electric resistance value, including determining whether the nugget has reached the interface and estimating the nugget diameter ND in accordance with the nugget diameter estimation equation (2), and equivalents thereof. Claims 2-6 further define the acts performed by the thickness estimation process and the diameter estimation process recited in claim 1. Therefore, the examiner does not apply the interpretation discussed above for claim 1 to claims 2-6. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanjo (US 6043449), in view of Kim et al. (CN 1206113) hereinafter Kim . Regarding claim 1 , Kanjo teaches, an estimation method for a nugget diameter (title: “nugget diameter estimation method”) of a nugget (Fig. 1: N, “nugget”) formed by resistance spot welding (col. 1, ln. 8: “spot welding”) including a first process (Fig. 4: S2-S5, wherein S2 and S3 disclose electrode clamping/pressurization, and S5 discloses start of welding current application) and a second process (Fig. 4: S6 & S7, wherein Kanjo teaches sampling inter-electrode displacement “until the electrode chip 12A is opened” (col. 7, ln. 60), including “after a finish of current conduction” (col. 8, ln. 27), which indicates the metal plates remain held between the electrode tips after energization is stopped), the first process (S2-S5) being a process of pressurizing (S2 & S3) two or more metal plates (annotated Fig. 2: W1 & W2, “metal plates”) that are laminated by being interposed between paired electrode tips (Fig. 2: E1, “upper electrode” and E2, “lower electrode”) (annotated Fig. 2 teaches two metal plates W1 and W2 are laminated by being interposed between the two electrode tips E1 & E2) and applying energization (S5) and the second process (S6, S7) being a process of stopping the energization (col. 7, ln. 60; col. 8, ln. 27) in the first process (S2-S5) and pressurizing the two or more metal plates (annotated Fig. 2) with the paired electrode tips (E1, E2), the estimation method (“estimation method”) comprising: a thickness estimation process of estimating a nugget thickness (col. 6, lns. 42-45: “making a decision on a conformity of the welding quality on a basis of an estimated size of the nugget, [that] may be a … nugget thickness,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the “thickness estimation process of estimating a nugget thickness”) using an expansion amount in a thickness direction of the two or more metal plates (W1, W2) (col. 7, ln. 66-col. 8, ln. 1: “base metal 10 begins to expand when a current conduction is started”; col. 9, lns. 40-41: “inter-electrode displacement Hexp due to thermal expansion,” wherein the inter-electrode displacement resulting from thermal expansion between the paired electrodes corresponds to expansion of the laminated metal plates along the electrode pressing direction, i.e., the thickness direction of the laminated metal plates) in the first process (S2-S5); and a diameter estimation process of estimating the nugget diameter (“col. 6, lns. 42-45: “making a decision on a conformity of the welding quality on a basis of an estimated size of the nugget, [that] may be a nugget diameter,” the examiner interprets as corresponding to the “diameter estimation process of estimating the nugget diameter”) using the expansion amount (col. 7, ln. 66-col. 8, ln. 1; col. 9, lns. 40-41) when the nugget is estimated to reach an interface between two of the metal plates (W1, W2) adjacent to each other (Fig. 2 shows the arrangement) using a thickness (Annotated Fig. 2: T1 & T2, “thicknesses”) of each of the two or more metal plates (W1, W2) and the estimated nugget thickness (col. 6, lns. 42-45) (Kanjo teaches “the second regression expression … on a basis of an inter-electrode displacement integration value” (col. 9, lns. 1-3) utilizes “thickness of welding plate” (X2) (col. 9, ln. 23) together with the estimated nugget diameter and inter-electrode displacement (col. 6, lns. 42-45; col. 9, lns. 40-41), which the examiner interprets as corresponding to estimating whether the nugget has grown in the thickness direction relative to an interface between adjacent laminated metal plates W1 & W2). Kanjo does not explicitly teach a thickness estimation process of estimating a nugget thickness using an electric resistance value between the paired electrode tips in the first process; and a diameter estimation process of estimating the nugget diameter using the electric resistance value. However, Kim teaches an estimation method for nugget size and nugget depth of penetration using a dynamic resistance curve (Kim (translation), p. 2, lns. 30-31: “Another object of the present invention provides a kind of improved method, and this method can be estimated point quality exactly by the nugget size and the nugget depth of penetration”), wherein a thickness estimation process of estimating a nugget thickness using an electric resistance value (Kim (translation), p. 6, lns. 12-13: “The Rdm that calculates is sent to nugget estimation device 250, is used for estimating the nugget size δ and the depth of penetration ρ of resistance spot welding”; the examiner interprets Kim as teaching that the depth ρ of the nugget corresponds to nugget growth in a thickness direction) between the paired electrode tips in the first process (p. 6, ln. 7: “dynamic resistance counter 240 calculates the M number of corresponding dynamic resistance Rdm”; p. 2, lns. 35-36: “The power factor that one basis calculates obtains the dynamic resistance counter of a dynamic resistance curve”; the examiner interprets Kim as teaching that the dynamic resistance as corresponding to the claimed electric resistance value between the paired electrode tips during spot welding); and a diameter estimation process of estimating the nugget diameter using the electric resistance value (Kim (translation), p. 6, lns. 12-13; the examiner interprets Kim as teaching that the dimension of the nugget size δ corresponds to nugget diameter). Kanjo and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of resistance spot welding involving methods for estimating nugget formation characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nugget estimation method of Kanjo to further utilize dynamic resistance information in estimating nugget thickness and nugget diameter as taught by Kim, for the purpose of “estimate[ing] point quality exactly by the nugget size and the nugget depth of penertarion” (Kim (translation), p. 2, lns. 30-31), thereby enabling nugget thickness direction growth and nugget diameter to be estimated using both expansion information and resistance based electrical behavior during spot welding. PNG media_image1.png 431 503 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 1 of Kanjo PNG media_image2.png 468 512 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Kanjo, annotated PNG media_image3.png 810 470 media_image3.png Greyscale Fig. 4 of Kanjo Regarding claim 5 , Kanjo in view of Kim teaches the estimation method (Kanjo: “estimation method”) according to claim 1, including estimating nugget thickness and nugget diameter based on nugget formation characteristics, as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kanjo and Kim does not explicitly teach estimating that the nugget reaches the interface when a half length of the estimated nugget thickness is longer than a distance between a center position in the thickness direction of the two or more metal plates and the interface that is farthest away from the center position. However, Kanjo teaches that the nugget has a thickness (Fig. 1: Nt, “thickness”; col. 6, lns. 44-45: “The nugget size may be a nugget diameter or nugget thickness”) and that the welding plates W1 & W2 have respective thickness (Kanjo, col. 9, lns. 16-23: “regression expression [includes] … x2: thickness of welding plate (explanation variable)”; thicknesses of the plates are annotated in Fig. 2 as T1 and T2). Once the nugget thickness and the thickness of the laminated metal plates are known, the location of each interface between adjacent metal plates and the distance from a center position in the thickness direction of the laminated metal plates to the farthest interface are determinable by ordinary geometric calculation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to estimate that the nugget reaches the interface by comparing a half length of the estimated nugget thickness with the distance between the center position in the thickness direction of the laminated metal plates and the interface farthest away from the center position, because such comparison merely determines whether the estimated nugget thickness extends far enough in the thickness direction to reach the known interface location. Regarding claim 7 , Kanjo in view of Kim teaches a determination method using the estimation method (Kanjo: nugget diameter estimation method”) according to claim 1, further comprising determining that a welding failure occurs when the nugget is estimated not to reach the interface using the thickness of each of the two or more metal plates and the estimated nugget thickness (Kanjo, col. 2, lns. 48-49: “making a decision on a conformity of the welding quality on a basis of an estimated size of the nugget”; Kim (translation), p. 2, lns. 29-30: “estimated point quality exactly by the nugget size and the nugget depth of penetration”; Kim (translation), p. 6, ln. 13: “estimating the nugget size δ and the depth of penetration ρ of resistance spot welding”; the examiner interprets Kanjo’s determination of welding quality based on an estimated nugget size and Kim’s estimation of nugget depth of penetration as teaching determining that a welding failure occurs when the estimated nugget thickness is insufficient to reach the interface between adjacent metal plates) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanjo (US 6043449), in view of Kim et al. (CN 1206113) hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2004160510) . Regarding claim 2 , Kanjo in view of Kim teaches the estimation method (Kanjo: “estimation method”) according to claim 1, including: a thickness estimation process of estimating the nugget thickness using an expansion amount in a thickness direction of the two or more metal plates and an electric resistance value; and a diameter estimation process of estimating the nugget diameter using the expansion amount and the electric resistance values, as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Kanjo and Kim does not explicitly teach: the thickness estimation process includes estimating the nugget thickness using a contraction amount in the thickness direction of the two or more metal plates in the second process, in addition to the expansion amount and the electric resistance value; and the diameter estimation process includes estimating the nugget diameter using the contraction amount, in addition to the expansion amount and the electric resistance value. However, Watanabe teaches an estimation method (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0001]: “method” for determining welding quality; paragraph [0064]: “welding quality judgment / estimation”; the examiner interprets Watanabe as teaching an estimation method for determining welding quality), wherein: the thickness estimation process includes estimating the nugget thickness using a contraction amount (paragraph [0031]: “contraction change”; “The discriminant function calculator 37 calculates a linear approximation for expansion change and a linear approximation for contraction change”) in the thickness direction (paragraph [0047]: “the expansion amount measuring unit 33 continuously measures and stores the thermal expansion amount (negative thermal expansion amount) of the base material”; paragraph [0027]: ”the base material in that portion contracts … [and the electrodes] move up and down according to contraction”; paragraph [0014]: “The movable electrode … be able to move up and down”; the examiner interprets the measured contraction between the upper and lower electrodes resulting from cooling of the laminated metal plates as corresponding to contraction in the thickness direction of the laminated metal plates) of the two or more metal plates (Fig. 2: 212, “metal plate”) in the second process (paragraph [0027]: “when the supply of the welding current ends,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the process of stopping the energization), in addition to the expansion amount (paragraph [0031]: “expansion change”) and the electric resistance value (abstract: “resistance”; “A voltage and a current between electrodes are measured while a welding current is flowing, and a change in resistance between the electrodes is detected”); and the diameter estimation process includes estimating the nugget diameter using the contraction amount (“contraction change”), in addition to the expansion (“expansion change”) amount and the electric resistance value (“resistance”) (paragraph [0079]: “a nugget diameter is estimated by multiple regression analysis using characteristic parameters obtained from thermal expansion and resistance waveforms as explanatory variables”). Kanjo, Kim and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of methods for determining welding quality involving nugget formation characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the nugget estimation method of Kanjo and Kim to further utilize contraction related information after energization as taught by Watanabe, in order to “enable highly accurate welding quality determination” (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0006]), thereby improving estimation accuracy of nugget formation characteristics during resistance spot welding. PNG media_image4.png 446 508 media_image4.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Watanabe Regarding claim 3 , Kanjo in combination with Kim and Watanabe teaches the estimation method (Kanjo: “estimation method”) according to claim 2, wherein the contraction amount is a value obtained by subtracting a thickness of the two or more metal plates at an end of the second process from a thickness of the two or more metal plates at a start of the second process (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0047]: “the expansion amount measuring unit 33 continuously measures and stores the thermal expansion amount (negative thermal expansion amount) of the base material”; paragraph [0027]: “”when the supply of the welding current starts, the base material in the portion sandwiched between the electrodes expands, and when the supply of the welding current ends, the base material in that portion contracts … [and the electrodes] move up and down according to contraction”; the examiner interprets Watanabe as teaching that the contraction amount corresponds to a difference between a thickness of the laminated metal plates at a start of the second process and a thickness of the laminated metal plates at an end of the second process, as represented by the measured negative thermal expansion amount during contraction). Regarding claim 4 , Kanjo in combination with Kim and Watanabe teaches the estimation method (Kanjo: “estimation method”) according to claim 2, wherein: the electric resistance value is an average of the electric resistance value (Fig. 6: “Rave”) from a time point returned from a time point at an end of the first process by a predetermined acquisition time to the time point at the end (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0059]: “a predetermined period of time from the start of energization is T1, the end time of energization is WeldEnd, and the average value of resistance between T1 and WeldEnd is Rave”; paragraph [0073]: “the average value (Rave in Fig. 6)”; the examiner interprets Watanabe as teaching the claimed electric resistance value as an average resistance value over a predetermined acquisition period ending at the end of energization). Kanjo, Kim and Watanabe does not explicitly teach the acquisition time is less than or equal to half a process time of the first process. However, Watanabe discloses that T1, which defines the start of the acquisition period for the average resistance value Rave ending at WeldEnd, “may be an arbitrary time as a predetermined time from the start of energization” (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0073]). Watanabe further discloses, “after the inter-electrode resistance R has passed the peak Rpeak, … the current path area S can be estimated from the interelectrode resistance R[, and] … there is a strong correlation between the current path area S and the area of the fusion zone, that is, the nugget diameter” (Watanabe (translation), paragraph [0072]). Kanjo additionally discloses, “thermal expansion reaches its peak within half of the current conducting time” (Kanjo, col. 12, lns. 36-37). Thus, the selection of the acquisition time for calculating the average resistance value is a result-effective variable because the selected acquisition period affects the resistance information used to estimate nugget diameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the predetermined acquisition time taught by Watanabe, including selecting the acquisition time to be less than or equal to half of the energization/process time, in order to obtain resistance information from a desired portion of the energization period having correlation with nugget formation, particularly after substantial nugget growth has occurred, thereby improving estimation accuracy of nugget formation characteristics, including selecting the acquisition time to be less than or equal to half of the process time of the first process. PNG media_image5.png 421 789 media_image5.png Greyscale Fig. 6 of Watanabe Regarding claim 6 , Kanjo in combination with Kim and Watanabe teaches the estimation method (Kanjo: “estimation method”) according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach: when the nugget thickness is NT (mm), the nugget diameter is ND (mm), the expansion amount is E (mm), the contraction amount is S (mm), the electric resistance value is R (Ω), and predetermined constants are C1 to C8, the thickness estimation process includes obtaining the nugget thickness using an equation (1) below; and the diameter estimation process includes obtaining the nugget diameter using an equation (2) below, where NT = C1 × E + C2 × S + C3 × R + C4 (1) ND = C5 × E + C6 × S + C7 × R + C8 (2). However, Kanjo discloses that nugget characteristics are estimated using regression expressions having predetermined coefficients (col. 8, ln. 54: “ y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x4” ; col. 9, ln. 18: “ y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5” ), and wherein the regression coefficients are determined from experimental results (col. 7, ln. 20: “Regression coefficient calculated by an experiment”; col. 14, lns. 25-26: “Partial regression variable b of the regression expression is calculated by using a method of least squares”). Watanabe further discloses estimating nugget diameter using multiple regression analysis based on welding parameters including thermal expansion, contraction and resistance information (Watanabe, paragraph [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine appropriate regression coefficients to formulate linear regression equations using the known welding parameters of expansion amount, contraction amount, and electric resistance value for estimating nugget thickness and nugget diameter, because Kanjo and Watanabe recognizes that nugget characteristics are predictable from measured welding parameters through regression-based modeling. The particular coefficient C1-C8 and the resulting equations would have been obtained through routine experimentation and optimization of the regression model, in order to achieve the desired estimation accuracy . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sawanishi et al. (WO 2017212916), Anayama et al. (WO 201205010) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM. 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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. /J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 10 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 11 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 12 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 13 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 14 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 15 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 16 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 17 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 18 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/143,929 Page 19 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights