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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fix, JR et al. (US2022/0143741A1) (hereafter Fix) in view of Fukuhara et al. (US2006/0169740A1) and Bartos et al. (US2017/0361394A1) (hereafter Bartos).
With respect to claim 1, Fix teaches an automated friction welding system for friction welding (title) a fixture (8) onto a substrate (14) at an interface between the fixture and the substrate using an electric power system (paragraphs 8 and 57), said system comprising: a friction welding tool (12) operably connectable to the power system, said friction welding tool comprising: a tool housing (40A) (figures 1B-1C; and paragraphs 8 and 54-58); a linear actuator (19) received in an axially slidable relation to produce a defined stroke within the tool housing (figures 1B-1C; and paragraphs 8 and 54-58); a rotary motor (20) disposed in the tool housing and engaged to said linear actuator to slide therewith; a collet (32) configured to receive the fixture (figures 1B-1C; and paragraphs 8 and 54-58); a control system (automated controller) (figures 1B-1C; and paragraphs 8-9, 54-58, and 103).
With respect to claim 1, Fix does not teach one or more motor operation sensor(s) and one or more linear actuator operation sensor(s), each capable of producing an operations sensor output; a control module, comprising: a central processing unit; read only memory; a set of firmware instruction installed on the read only memory; read access memory that can receive job instructions; a sensor controller connected to receive the operations sensor output from the linear actuator operation sensor(s) and the motor operation sensor(s); a welder controller with outputs connected to the linear actuator and the rotary motor; whereby the control module affords both active control of the linear actuator and rotary motor, individually to performance parameter instructions, and in coordination through phases of the weld process in response to the operations sensor output from linear actuator operation sensors and motor operation sensors.
However, Fukuhara teaches each one or more motor operation sensor(s) (encoder for motor 72) and one or more linear actuator operation sensor(s) (current detector for linear actuator 73), each capable of producing an operations sensor output (figure 12; and paragraphs 92 and 95); a control module (53) (figure 12; and paragraph 95), comprising: a central processing unit (central processing unit of 53) (figure 12; and paragraph 96); read only memory (read only memory of 53); read access memory that can receive job instructions; a sensor controller connected to receive the operations sensor output from the linear actuator operation sensor(s) and the motor operation sensor(s) (read access memory of 53); a welder controller with outputs connected to the linear actuator and the rotary motor (figure 12; and paragraphs 86-87, 92, 95, and 97); whereby the control module affords both active control of the linear actuator and rotary motor, individually to performance parameter instructions, and in coordination through phases of the weld process in response to the operations sensor output from linear actuator operation sensors and motor operation sensors (figure 12; and paragraphs 86-87, 92, 95, and 97).
While, Bartos teaches a set of firmware instruction installed on the read only memory; read access memory that can receive job instructions (Figure 1; and paragraphs 12-14).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sensing and control of Fukuhara with the apparatus of Fix in order to utilize feedback to ensure that the friction welder operates at the desired rotational speed and compressive force. In addition, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the firmware instruction of Bartos in the collective apparatus of Fix and Fukuhara in order to be able to efficiently provide the desired instructions for operating the welding system.
With respect to claim 2, Fukuhara teaches wherein: the one or more motor operation sensor(s) are selected from a group comprising rpm, torque, heat, humidity and power consumption; and the one or more linear actuator operation sensor(s) are selected from a group comprising forging force, length of stroke, velocity of stroke, heat, humidity, and power consumption (Figure 12; and paragraphs 92-95).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fix and Fukuhara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nair (WO2019/238874A1).
With respect to claim 3, Fix teaches the welding system is portable and deployable/adaptable at a field location (paragraphs 53-54), but Fix and Fukuhara do not teach wherein the control system comprises: one or more environmental sensors selected from the group comprising ultrasonic transducers, cameras, proximity sensors, temperature sensors, depth sensors and metallurgical identification, the environmental sensors being in communication with the control module and capable of producing an environmental sensor output; and an input/output provision through which any additional data necessary to identify appropriate job instructions to be loaded into the control module; whereby the environmental conditions at the weld location are identified for controlling the weld operations and completed weld may be inspected and evaluated at the time of the weld.
However, Bartos teaches the control system comprises one or more environmental sensors selected from the group comprising ultrasonic transducers, cameras, proximity sensors, temperature sensors, depth sensors and metallurgical identification, the environmental sensors being in communication with the control module and capable of producing an environmental sensor output (figure 1; and paragraphs 12-15).
While, Nair teaches wherein the control system comprises: and an input/output provision through which any additional data necessary to identify appropriate job instructions to be loaded into the control module (figures 1, 5, and 6; and page 19, line 20-page 21, line 7); whereby the environmental conditions at the weld location are identified for controlling the weld operations and completed weld may be inspected and evaluated at the time of the weld (figures 1, 5, and 6; and page 19, line 20-page 21, line 7).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize control of Nair in the collective apparatus of Fix and Fukuhara in order to facilitate the welding of the components based at least in part on models of workpiece parameters and/or ambient conditions to achieve satisfactory weldments.
With respect to claim 4, Nair teaches wherein the control system further comprises: a remote server system (server 640); and a library (memory 610) of possible job instructions stored on the server (figure 6; and page 22, line 21-page 23, line 15).
With respect to claim 5, Nair teaches wherein the remote server system is cloud based (figure 6; and page 22, line 21-page 23, line 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that both Fukuhara '740 and Bartos '394 relate to friction stir welding. Friction stir welding is a distinct and non-analogous art to friction stud welding. Friction stir welding is directed to joining adjacent plates in a continuous weld to form one larger, solid plate, see .e.g., Bartos FIG. 1. Friction stud welding installs premium connectors denoted as "fixtures" which may be bolted onto in the case of studs or bolted into in the case of bosses as fixtures. Fix is in the field of premium connectors, but none of Fix, Fukuhar, or Bartos, whether considered separately or together, supplies the impetus to combine the asserted features selected from non-analogous friction stir welding to Fix.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as the obviousness rejection is based on Fix positively teaching stud welding. In response to applicant's argument that Fukuhara and Bartos are nonanalogous art to Fix, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art references are all from the field of the inventor’s endeavor which is friction welding. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to employ the senors, control, and software of Fukuhara '740 and Bartos on fix to automate the friction stud welding process. Note that the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-42 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735