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 .
Priority
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.
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.
Claims 17-32 are 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 22, line 2 recites “the current-carrying part”; claim 23, line 1 recites “the ratio”; claim 25, line 5 recites “the aid”; claim 26, line 2 recites “the welding force”; claim 27, line 3 recites “the direction”; claim 30, lines 3-4 recites “the torque characteristics; the welding force characteristics”; claim 31, line 3 recites “the quality; the movement data”; claim 32, lines 1-2 recites ‘the welding spots”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17, lines 2 and 5 recites the phrase “can be moved; can be applied” which renders the claim indefinite because the phrase “can be” is not a positive recitation. It is suggested to delete the phrase “can be” and change to “is moved; is applied”.
Claim 20, line 1 recites “it has a means” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural element “it” refers to.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 24, 28 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon claims 17 and 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 18, 20, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cielinski (US 2015/0069026).
With respect to the limitations of claim 17, Cielinski teaches a single-spot welding device (title, abstract) having a welding plunger (Figs 1-3, actuator arm 18, 0016), the welding plunger has a welding electrode (upper electrode assembly 12, 0014) and the welding plunger can be moved cyclically from a starting position to a welding material (0016, the linear actuator motor 14 is configured to move the actuator arm 18 and the upper electrode assembly 12 up and down), an electric drive is provided (linear actuator motor 14, 0015, 0017), by means of which the welding plunger can be moved to the welding material and by means of which a force can be applied to the welding material (based upon the shape and size of the components to be welded and the desired clamping force F, 0016, 0017).
With respect to the limitations of claims 18 and 20, Cielinski teaches the electric drive is a linear motor (linear actuator motor 14).
it has a means for position feedback in order to cyclically move the welding plunger to an initial and nominal position (linear encoder 23, 0005, 0018).
With respect to the limitations of claim 25, Cielinski teaches a method for performing a welding comprising the following steps: approaching a welding plunger (Figs 1-3, actuator arm 18, 0016) of a single-spot welding device from a starting position to a welding material (0016, the linear actuator motor 14 is configured to move the actuator arm 18 and the upper electrode assembly 12 up and down) by means of an electric drive (linear actuator motor 14, 0015, 0017), pressing the welding plunger onto the welding material before and/or during welding with the aid of an electric drive, and returning the welding plunger to the starting position (based upon the shape and size of the components to be welded and the desired clamping force F, 0016, 0017).
With respect to the limitations of claim 28, Cielinski teaches an electric control (0017, 0018, controller) is provided which controls the electric drive and monitors the positions (linear encoder 23, 0005, 0018) of the welding plunger (18).
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.
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.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cielinski (US 2015/0069026) as applied to claims 17 and 25, further in view of Schmid-Doernte (US 6,064,028).
With respect to the limitations of claim 19, Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the electric drive is a servo motor connected to the welding plunger by means of a spindle or a rack, to perform the movement of the welding plunger. However, Schmid-Doernte discloses the electric drive is a servo motor (Figs 1, 2, drive 13, AC/DC servomotor, Col 3) connected to the welding plunger (welding head 10, Col 2) by means of a spindle or a rack (drive spindle 16, Col 3, Lines 1-5), to perform the movement of the welding plunger is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the single-spot welding device of Cielinski having an electric drive silent to a servo motor, spindle / rack with the electric drive is a servo motor connected to the welding plunger by means of a spindle or a rack, to perform the movement of the welding plunger of Schmid-Doernte for the purpose of using a known alternative drive configuration for moves the welding electrode to a predetermined position for producing electrode pressure on the workpiece (Col 3, Lines 1-11).
With respect to the limitations of claim 26, Cielinski in view of Schmid-Doernte discloses comprising the further step: increasing the welding force during welding to applying force (Schmid-Doernte, Fig 3, Col 4, Lines 20-25, increasing the pressing force to F max. Switching on the welding current) to the welding plunger with the aid of the electric drive.
Claims 21, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cielinski (US 2015/0069026) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Narita (JPH07124753). An English machine translation of Narita (JPH07124753) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claims 21 and 22, Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the electric drive is a servo motor which is connected to the welding plunger by means of a cam, the welding plunger being designed as a spring plunger; a mechanical damping element is provided between the electric drive and the current-carrying part of the single-spot welding device.
However, Narita discloses the electric drive is a servo motor (Fig 2, servomotor 6, 0010, 0015) which is connected to the welding plunger (shaft 23, 0016) by means of a cam (cam 21, 0016), the welding plunger being designed as a spring plunger (compression spring 24, 0016); a mechanical damping element (compression spring 24) is provided between the electric drive (6) and the current-carrying part (electrode tip 11, 0018) of the single-spot welding device is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the single-spot welding device of Cielinski having an electric drive and plunger silent to the recited cam with the electric drive is a servo motor which is connected to the welding plunger by means of a cam, the welding plunger being designed as a spring plunger; a mechanical damping element is provided between the electric drive and the current-carrying part of the single-spot welding device of Narita for the purpose of providing a known cam drive configuration allows a plunger shaft to be pushed down by rotation of a cam to allow a workpiece to be clamped between the electrode tips at a predetermined pressure (0018).
With respect to the limitations of claim 23, Cielinski discloses the welding device having a ratio of external mass (total mass of welding head 10) to motor mass (linear actuator motor 14). Cielinski in view of Narita discloses the claimed invention except for a ratio of external mass to motor mass is less than 1. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have a ratio of external mass to motor mass is less than 1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable mass to motor mass ratio ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 24 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cielinski (US 2015/0069026) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Hubert (WO2019144174) or Rupoli (WO 2010/095076). An English copy of Hubert (WO2019144174) and Rupoli (WO 2010/095076) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 24, Cielinski discloses spot welding system for two or more components together (0004) with at least one single-spot welding device of claim 17 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above). Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the welded assembly is a wire mesh. However, Hubert discloses the welded assembly is a wire mesh (Figs 1-3, wire mesh 2, longitudinal bar 3, transverse bar 4, 0066, abstract) is known in the art. Additionally, Rupoli discloses the welded assembly is a wire mesh (Figs 16-21, longitudinal bars 2, transverse element 3, Pg 8) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the single-spot welding device of Cielinski welding two or more components together silent to the type of welded assembly with the welded assembly is a wire mesh of Hubert or Rupoli for the purpose of forming a known metal mesh assembly that is suitable for a variety of commercial uses.
With respect to the limitations of claim 32, Cielinski discloses spot welding system for two or more components together (0004) produced by an electrically driven welding plunger of a one single-spot welding device of claim 17 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above). Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the components are a wire mesh made of longitudinal and transverse wires welded together the welding spots being produced by driven welding plungers. However, Hubert discloses the components are a wire mesh made of longitudinal and transverse wires welded together the welding spots (Figs 1-3, wire mesh 2, longitudinal bar 3, transverse bar 4, 0066, abstract) being produced by driven welding plungers (Fig 1, welding head 7, 0057) is known in the art. Additionally, Rupoli discloses the components are a wire mesh made of longitudinal and transverse wires welded together (Figs 16-21, longitudinal bars 2, transverse element 3, Pg 8) the welding spots being produced by driven welding plungers (Figs 6-9, welding heads 30, Pg 4) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the single-spot welding device of Cielinski welding two or more components together silent to the type of welded assembly with the components are a wire mesh made of longitudinal and transverse wires welded together the welding spots being produced by driven welding plungers of Hubert or Rupoli for the purpose of forming a known metal mesh assembly that is suitable for a variety of commercial uses.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cielinski (US 2015/0069026) as applied to claim 25, further in view of Takahashi (US 2011/0180516).
With respect to the limitations of claim 27, Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the step of approaching the welding plunger takes place in the sub-steps: approaching the welding plunger in the direction of the welding material at a maximum speed: approaching an end position of the welding plunger at reduced speed; and stopping the approach to the end position before the end position is reached. However, Takahashi discloses the step of approaching the welding plunger takes place in the sub-steps: approaching the welding plunger in the direction of the welding material at a maximum speed (Figs 3, 5, motor velocity V1, 0046): approaching an end position of the welding plunger at reduced speed (Fig 5, motor velocity after t3, 0050); and stopping the approach to the end position before the end position is reached (Fig 5, motor velocity at t4, 0051) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the welding method with a single-spot welding device of Cielinski silent to the recited plunger sub-steps with the step of approaching the welding plunger takes place in the sub-steps: approaching the welding plunger in the direction of the welding material at a maximum speed: approaching an end position of the welding plunger at reduced speed; and stopping the approach to the end position before the end position is reached of Takahashi for the purpose of providing a known workpiece position detection process that is carried out by welding gun controller (0041).
Claims 29, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cielinski (US 2015/0069026) as applied to claim 25, further in view of Kanjo (US 6,232,572).
With respect to the limitations of claims 29, 30 and 21, Cielinski discloses the claimed invention except for the following two steps are provided: comparing the nominal and actual values of the position of the welding plunger; and calculating a wear from the nominal and actual values; the following step is provided: calculating a wear of at least one of the welding plungers by reading the torque characteristic or the welding force characteristic; the following step is provided: calculating the quality of weld nodes based on the movement data of the welding plungers in comparison with pre-calculated values. However, Kanjo discloses the following two steps are provided: comparing the nominal and actual values of the position of the welding plunger; and calculating a wear from the nominal and actual values (Col 2, Lines 10-19); the following step is provided: calculating a wear of at least one of the welding plungers (Col 6, Line 65 thru Col 7, Line 31) by reading the torque characteristic or the welding force characteristic (Col 8, Line 45 thru Col 9, Line 40); the following step is provided: calculating the quality of weld nodes based on the movement data of the welding plungers in comparison with pre-calculated values (Col 9, Line 53 thru Col 10, Line 47) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt welding method with the single-spot welding device of Cielinski silent to wear or error calculating steps with the following two steps are provided: comparing the nominal and actual values of the position of the welding plunger; and calculating a wear from the nominal and actual values; the following step is provided: calculating a wear of at least one of the welding plungers by reading the torque characteristic or the welding force characteristic; the following step is provided: calculating the quality of weld nodes based on the movement data of the welding plungers in comparison with pre-calculated values of Kanjo for the purpose of determine an electrode wear or welding quality condition based on a monitored displacement of the welding plunger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/3/2026