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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-6 are pending:
Claims 5-6 is withdrawn
Claim 1-4 is examined on the merits
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (Fig10) in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 5-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Claim 5/6
Applicant identified Claims 5/6 as being directed towards non-elected species
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/16/2023, 11/27/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because in Claim 1 the claimed invention directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites (mapping of technological area limitations by Saito (WO 2020/050011) as expanded upon below):
“A spatter detection method for
detecting an occurrence of spatter at the time of joining a workpiece (best seen Fig1/4, workpart W with plates W1/W2/W3), which is a multilayer body of a plurality of plates (best seen Fig1/4, workpart W with plates W1/W2/W3), using
a welding apparatus (best seen Fig1/2, welding system S) including a pair of electrodes (electrode tips 21/26),
a welding power circuit (best seen Fig1/2, welding power supply circuit 3) connected to the pair of electrodes (electrical connection best seen Fig2), and
a current sensor (Fig2, current sensor 3d) configured to detect a current flowing through the pair of electrodes (best seen Fig2; SpecQuote: “The current sensor 3d detects a welding current supplied from the welding power supply circuit 3 to the chips 21 and 26.”),
wherein
a spot welding method using the welding apparatus includes
supplying a pulse-shaped welding current to the workpiece (Abstract “This spot welding method is a method for joining workpieces being a layered body of three or more metal sheets by supplying welding current. The welding current has a pulse-like waveform”; Fig3 best shows pulse-shaped current),
the pulse-shaped welding current being generated when the welding power circuit alternately repeats power distribution control and a power distribution pause over a plurality of cycles while the workpiece is sandwiched and pressurized by the pair of electrodes (best shown by Fig3/4, plates W1/W2/W3 are welded via electrode tips 21/26 where the current pulse is repeatedly applied and paused over a plurality of cycles; SpecQuote11),
the spatter detection method comprising
determining, based on a current detection value detected by the current sensor in a power distribution pause section for each cycle, whether or not the spatter occurs.”
SpecQuote11: “{Here, as shown in FIG. 3, the welding current Iw increases as the duty ratio, which is the ratio of the pulse width PW, which is the period during which the AC voltage Vt becomes Hi or Lo, to the predetermined carrier cycle T, increases. As will be described later with reference to FIGS. 5 and 6, the control device 33 performs PI control or the like such that the output current of the welding power supply circuit 3 detected by the current sensor 3d becomes a target current determined by a process (not shown). The pulse width PW is determined in accordance with the known feedback control law, and a plurality of switching elements in the inverter circuit 32 are turned on / off by PWM control under a duty ratio determined by the pulse width PW.”
The underlined portions of the cited claim are all directed towards abstract ideas that fall within the bucket of a mental process. That is each of the underlined portions can be performed in the human mind as the abstract idea is effectively an exam question for one of ordinary skill in the art.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because beyond the abstract idea, the only items are either basic computing parts or are applying the abstract idea within a technological area. Additionally, the claim limitations of Claim 1 that are not underlined above are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Saito (WO 2020/050011) and as mapped above.
All dependent claims (claims 2-4) have been analyzed and present only additional abstract ideas and thus do not cure the deficiencies of the cited claim.
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.
Claim 2-4 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 2
L4-5,7, recitations within the parentheses renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the corresponding recitations are or are not required by the claim language, as it is unclear if the recitations within the parentheses are required further limiting limitations or if the recitations within the parentheses are optional informational / intended-but-not-required recitations as the default is that terms within parentheses do not limit claim scope, see MPEP 608.01(m).
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the recitations within the parentheses as required claim elements.
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (WO 2020/050011) in view of Sakamoto (JP 07-100662) and Arndt (DE 10 2013 216 966).
Claim 1
Saito discloses:
“A spatter detection method for
… a workpiece (best seen Fig1/4, workpart W with plates W1/W2/W3), which is a multilayer body of a plurality of plates (best seen Fig1/4, workpart W with plates W1/W2/W3), using
a welding apparatus (best seen Fig1/2, welding system S) including a pair of electrodes (electrode tips 21/26),
a welding power circuit (best seen Fig1/2, welding power supply circuit 3) connected to the pair of electrodes (electrical connection best seen Fig2), and
a current sensor (Fig2, current sensor 3d) configured to detect a current flowing through the pair of electrodes (best seen Fig2; SpecQuote: “The current sensor 3d detects a welding current supplied from the welding power supply circuit 3 to the chips 21 and 26.”),
wherein
a spot welding method using the welding apparatus includes
supplying a pulse-shaped welding current to the workpiece (Abstract “This spot welding method is a method for joining workpieces being a layered body of three or more metal sheets by supplying welding current. The welding current has a pulse-like waveform”; Fig3 best shows pulse-shaped current),
the pulse-shaped welding current being generated when the welding power circuit alternately repeats power distribution control and a power distribution pause over a plurality of cycles while the workpiece is sandwiched and pressurized by the pair of electrodes (best shown by Fig3/4, plates W1/W2/W3 are welded via electrode tips 21/26 where the current pulse is repeatedly applied and paused over a plurality of cycles; SpecQuote11),
the spatter detection method comprising
…”
SpecQuote11: “{Here, as shown in FIG. 3, the welding current Iw increases as the duty ratio, which is the ratio of the pulse width PW, which is the period during which the AC voltage Vt becomes Hi or Lo, to the predetermined carrier cycle T, increases. As will be described later with reference to FIGS. 5 and 6, the control device 33 performs PI control or the like such that the output current of the welding power supply circuit 3 detected by the current sensor 3d becomes a target current determined by a process (not shown). The pulse width PW is determined in accordance with the known feedback control law, and a plurality of switching elements in the inverter circuit 32 are turned on / off by PWM control under a duty ratio determined by the pulse width PW.”
Saito further discloses (SpecQuote12) that current flow has an impact on producing spatter and that suppressing the generation of spatter is desirable.
SpecQuote12: “In spot welding, if the current supply time between the pair of electrode tips is short, the nugget may not grow to the size required for welding and welding may not be possible. On the other hand, if the energization time between the pair of electrode tips is lengthened, the nugget grows too much and protrudes from the corona bond formed between the plurality of metal plates (unmelted pressure-bonded portion formed outside the nugget). As a result, the nugget may be exposed and spatter may occur. Under such circumstances, in spot welding, reliable welding is required while suppressing generation of spatter.”
Saito does not explicitly disclose active detection of spatter.
Sakamoto teaches (PRUPOSE/CONSTITUTION; Fig1-3) that it is known to detect/sense the current (current detector 2) while welding (work part 4, electrodes 3) to determine if spatter/splashing occurs based on threshold comparisons.
Arndt teaches (Claim1; Fig1-3) that it is known to identify welding spatter during a welding pause/hold time by way of sensing system resistance.
SpecQuotes (context added by office shown by square [] brackets):
“A monitoring of the complete resistance curve, starting with the first welding energization until lifting off Welding electrodes advantageously allows welding spatter to be detected even in current pauses and during a retention time.”
“[Figure]3 shows by way of example a reference resistance profile and a measured resistance profile with a spatter in a pause time.” (see the resistance 300/301/302 flux during pause time between t.1 and t.2, relative to the lack of a flux in the ideal situation shown by Fig2)
“In [Figure]3 it can be seen that during the break time the measurement process 302 in contrast to the reference curve, which increases continuously due to the slight warming, shows a clearly declining behavior. This behavior is an indication of the occurrence of welding spatter in a non-current time (eg pause or retention time).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Saito to add active spatter detection based on current sensing, as Saito discloses that avoiding spatter is desirable and that current flow plays a roll in spatter production, Sakamoto teaches that it is known in the art to determine spatter production based on detected/sensed current while welding relative to threshold comparisons, and Arndt teaches that it is known in the art to determine spatter production during pauses between applying welding current cycles to a workpart, and therefore the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Saito with active spatter detection during welding pause cycle times, as taught by Arndt, by detecting/sensing the current flow in the electrodes, as taught by Sakamoto.
Claim 2
The modified arrangement of Saito by the teachings of Sakamoto and Arndt discloses: “The spatter detection method according to claim 1, further comprising determining whether or not the spatter occurs (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in Claim 1. Sakamoto teaches a threshold current comparison method, while Saito applies current load in cycles over time), based on comparison of the current detection value in the power distribution pause section for an N-th cycle (N being an integer equal to or greater than 2) with the current detection value in the power distribution pause section for an M-th cycle (M being an integer smaller than N) (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in Claim 1. Sakamoto teaches a threshold current comparison method, Saito applies current load in cycles over time, and Arndt teaches (Fig2/3) to compare the sensed value during the pause relative to expected values from other cycles).”
Claim 3
The modified arrangement of Saito by the teachings of Sakamoto and Arndt discloses: “The spatter detection method according to claim 2, wherein the M-th cycle is a cycle immediately before the N-th cycle (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in Claim 1. Sakamoto teaches a threshold current comparison method, Saito applies current load in cycles over time, and Arndt teaches (Fig2/3) to compare the sensed value during the pause relative to expected values from other cycles).”
Claim 4
The modified arrangement of Saito by the teachings of Sakamoto and Arndt discloses: “The spatter detection method according to claim 3, further comprising determining that the spatter occurs when a difference value is larger than a first threshold value, the difference value being obtained by subtracting the current detection value in the power distribution pause section for the M-th cycle from the current detection value in the power distribution pause section for the N-th cycle (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in Claim 1. Sakamoto teaches a threshold current comparison method, Saito applies current load in cycles over time, and Arndt teaches (Fig2/3) to compare the sensed value during the pause relative to expected values from other cycles).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,296,401 to Saito: US Patent version of Saito above
US 12,440,916 to Watanabe: US Patent version of IDS reference
US 11,850,674 to Watanabe: US Patent version of IDS reference
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights