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 § 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, recitations “two or more starting materials”, “only one of the starting materials”, and “two or more of the starting materials” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether either one of the two later claimed “starting material” refers to the previously claimed two or more starting materials; and it is further unclear which starting materials of these claimed starting materials are related (and how they are related) and which starting materials of said claimed starting materials are not related. The same rejections are also applied to recitations ““two or more starting materials”, “only one of the starting materials”, and “two or more of the starting materials” for claim 6 and its dependent.
Regarding claim 2 and its dependents, recitations “the concave-shaped welding end portion is located at an end portion of the opening portion” is indefinite since claim 1 already defines “one end of a laser weld zone is located at an end portion of the single layer region of the blank, and the one end forms a concave-shaped welding end portion …”, and therefore, it is unclear whether the end portion of the opening portion in claim 2 refers to the end portion of the single layer region previously claimed in claim 1 or the end portion of the opening portion in claim 2 and the end portion of the single layer region previously claimed in claim 1 are two different portions. The same rejection is also applied to recitation “the concave-shaped welding end portion is located at an end portion of the opening portion” for claim 7.
Regarding claim 3 and its dependent, terms “a first starting material” and “a second starting material” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether either one of the first starting material or the second starting material refers to any of the previously claimed starting material claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether term “the starting materials” refers to any of the previously claimed starting materials claimed in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 5 and its dependents, recitations “two or more starting materials”, “one or two or more of the starting materials”, “one of the starting materials”, “only one of the starting materials”, and “two or more of the starting materials” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which starting materials of these claimed starting materials are related (and how they are related) and which starting materials of said claimed starting materials are not related.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it is unclear whether term “the starting materials” refers to any of the previously claimed starting material claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OIKAWA JP2011162009A (provided by IDS).
Regarding claim 1, OIKAWA teaches the invention as claimed: A blank (10, Fig. 2b) in which two or more starting materials (20 and 30, Fig. 2b) that overlap each other are joined with each other by laser welding (W1 and Z1, Fig. 2b and [0029 and 0031]), wherein
the blank has a single layer region (where Z1 is), in which only one of the starting materials is present (only has 30, see Fig. 2b), and a multi-layer region (where W1 is), in which two or more of the starting materials overlap each other (20 and 30 see Fig. 2b),
laser welding (W1 and Z1) is continuously applied to the multi-layer region and the single layer region (see Fig. 2b and [0029 and 0031]), and
one end (S) of a laser weld zone (S and T, Fig. 2b) is located at an end portion (annotated Fig. 2b) of the single layer region (where Z1 is) of the blank (10), and the one end (S) forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape (see annotated Fig. 2b) when the blank (10) is viewed from an end face (interpreted as an end surface, which is the surface as shown in Fig. 2b).
PNG
media_image1.png
781
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, OIKAWA further teaches wherein each of the starting materials (both of 20 and 30 in Fig. 2b) is a steel material ([0027]).
Regarding claim 5, OIKAWA teaches the invention as claimed: A method for producing a blank (10, Fig. 2b) in which two or more starting materials (20 and 30, Fig. 2b) that overlap each other are joined with each other by laser welding (W1 and Z1, Fig. 2b and [0029 and 0031]), the method comprising:
preparing an overlapped member (annotated Fig. 2b) by making one or two or more of the starting materials (30) overlap a partial region of one of the starting materials (20, see Fig. 2b), the overlapped member (annotated Fig. 2b) having a single layer region (where Z1 is), in which only one of the starting materials is present (20, see Fig. 2b), and a multi-layer region (where W1 is), in which two or more of the starting materials overlap each other (20 and 30, see Fig. 2b); and
continuously applying laser welding (W1 and Z1) to the multi-layer region and the single layer region of the overlapped member (see Fig. 2b and [0029 and 0031]) such that one end (S) of a laser weld zone (S and T, Fig. 2b) of the blank (10) is located at an end portion (annotated Fig. 2b) of the single layer region (where Z1 is) of the blank (10), and the one end (S) forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape (see annotated Fig. 2b) when the blank (10) is viewed from an end face (interpreted as an end surface, which is the surface as shown in Fig. 2b).
PNG
media_image2.png
834
1090
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki 20070214998 in view of OIKAWA JP2011162009A (provided by IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Komaki teaches the invention as claimed: A blank (Fig. 24) in which two or more starting materials (306, 307, and 314 see Fig. 24) that overlap each other are joined with each other by laser welding (per [0178], 307 and 306 are joined by welding indicated as line U, see Fig. 21), wherein
the blank has a single layer region (per [0195], during the process of forming the blank as shown in Fig. 24, 307 is firstly welded to 306 and 314 is secondly welded to 307 and 306, and thus, before 314 is welded to 307 and 306, the edge portion of 306 where 314b would be placed later is a single layer, also see annotated Fig. 24a), in which only one of the starting materials is present (306, see annotated Fig. 24a), and a multi-layer region (where the leg of 307 overlaps with 306, see annotated Fig. 24a), in which two or more of the starting materials (307 and 306) overlap each other (see annotated Fig. 24a),
laser welding (indicated by line U, see Fig. 21 and [0178]) is continuously applied to the multi-layer region (where the leg of 307 overlaps with 306, see Fig. 21 and annotated Fig. 24a).
PNG
media_image3.png
596
976
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Komaki does not teach laser welding is continuously applied to the multi-layer region and the single layer region, and one end of a laser weld zone is located at an end portion of the single layer region of the blank, and the one end forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape when the blank is viewed from an end face.
However, OIKAWA teaches laser welding (W1 and Z1) is continuously applied to the multi-layer region (where W1 is) and the single layer region (where Z1 is, see Fig. 2b and 3-4 and [0029 and 0031]), and one end (S) of a laser weld zone (S and T, Fig. 2b) is located at an end portion (annotated Fig. 2b in claim 1) of the single layer region (where Z1 is) of the blank (10), and the one end (S) forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape (see annotated Fig. 2b in claim 1) when the blank (10) is viewed from an end face (interpreted as an end surface, which is the surface as shown in Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with OIKAWA’s continuously applying laser welding to the multi-layer region and the single layer region, such that
one end of a laser weld zone is located at an end portion of the single layer region of the blank, and the one end forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape when the blank is viewed from an end face (the modification is instead of only continuously applying laser welding to Komaki’s multi-layer region, continuously applying laser welding to Komaki’s multi-layer region and Komaki’s single layer region as taught by OIKAWA)
in order to reduce welding distortion and obtain a good aesthetic appearance (OIKAWA, [0040 and 0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Komaki in view of OIKAWA further teaches wherein the single layer region (Komaki’s edge portion of 306 where Komaki’s 314b would be placed later is a single layer before Komaki’s 314 is placed on Komaki’s 306 and 307, see annotated Komaki’s Fig. 24a and Komaki’s [0195]) of the blank (Komaki’s Fig. 24) has an opening portion (Komaki’s S1 where window is installed, see Komaki’s Figs. 20 and 24 and [0194]), and the concave-shaped welding end portion (see OIKAWA’s annotated Fig. 2b in claim 1) is located at an end portion of the opening portion (after continuously applying laser welding to Komaki’s edge portion of 306 marked in annotated Komaki’s Fig. 24a as taught by OIKAWA’s [0029 and 0031], OIKAWA’s concave-shaped welding end portion as shown in annotated OIKAWA’s Fig. 2b in claim 1 is located at an end portion of opening S1, see annotated Komaki’s Fig. 24a, laser welding is demonstrated by dash-line).
PNG
media_image4.png
596
986
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The motivation of the combination is the same with the reason for applying OIKAWA for claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 9, Komaki further teaches wherein each of the starting materials (306, 307, and 314) is a steel material ([0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Komaki teaches the invention as claimed: A member (Fig. 24) including two or more starting materials (306, 307, and 314 see Fig. 24) that overlap each other, the member being shaped into a predetermined shape (see Fig. 24), wherein
the member has a single layer region (per [0195], during the process of forming the blank as shown in Fig. 24, 307 is firstly welded to 306 and 314 is secondly welded to 307 and 306, and thus, before 314 is welded to 307 and 306, the edge portion of 306 where 314b would be placed later is a single layer, also see annotated Fig. 24a), in which only one of the starting materials is present (306, see annotated Fig. 24a), and a multi-layer region (where the leg of 307 overlaps with 306, see annotated Fig. 24a), in which two or more of the starting materials (307 and 306) overlap each other (see annotated Fig. 24a),
the multi-layer region (where the leg of 307 overlaps with 306, see Fig. 21 and annotated Fig. 24a) is applied by laser welding (indicated by line U, see Fig. 21 and [0178]).
PNG
media_image3.png
596
976
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Komaki does not teach the multi-layer region and the single layer region are joined with each other continuously by laser welding, and one end of a laser weld zone is located at an end portion of the single layer region of the member, and the one end forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape when the member is viewed from an end face.
However, OIKAWA teaches the multi-layer region (where W1 is) and the single layer region (where Z1 is) are joined with each other continuously by laser welding (see Fig. 2b and 3-4 and [0029 and 0031]), and one end (S) of a laser weld zone (S and T, Fig. 2b) is located at an end portion (annotated Fig. 2b in claim 1) of the single layer region (where Z1 is) of the member (10), and the one end (S) forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape (see annotated Fig. 2b in claim 1) when the member (10) is viewed from an end face (interpreted as an end surface, which is the surface as shown in Fig. 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Komaki with OIKAWA’s joining the multi-layer region and the single layer region to each other by continuously applying laser welding, such that
one end of a laser weld zone is located at an end portion of the single layer region of the member, and the one end forms a concave-shaped welding end portion having a concave shape when the member is viewed from an end face (the modification is instead of only applying laser welding to Komaki’s multi-layer region, continuously applying laser welding to Komaki’s multi-layer region and Komaki’s single layer region as taught by OIKAWA)
in order to reduce welding distortion and obtain a good aesthetic appearance (OIKAWA, [0040 and 0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Komaki in view of OIKAWA further teaches the claimed limitation, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komaki 20070214998 in view of OIKAWA JP2011162009A (provided by IDS), and in further view of Lindgren 20170355407.
Regarding claim 3, Komaki further teaches wherein a first starting material (306) forming the single layer region (per [0195], during the process of forming the blank as shown in Fig. 24, 307 is firstly welded to 306 and 314 is secondly welded to 307 and 306, and thus, before 314 is welded to 307 and 306, the edge portion of 306 where 314b would be placed later is a single layer, also see annotated Fig. 24a in claim 1), and a second starting material (307) overlapping the first starting material (306) in the multi-layer region (see annotated Fig. 24a in claim 1) is a reinforcement component ([0177]).
Komaki in view of OIKAWA does not teach tensile strength of said first starting material is lower than tensile strength of said second starting material.
However, Lindgren teaches tensile strength of a first starting material (panel portion per [0028]) is lower than tensile strength of a second starting material (reinforcement patch per [0028] attached to the panel portion, and per [0028], the tensile strength of the panel portion and the tensile strength of the reinforcement path are independently selected between 780 MPa and 2200 MPa, and thus when panel portion selects a tensile strength as 800 is lower than reinforcement patch selects a tensile strength as 2000) that is made as a reinforcement component ([0028]) in order to form a blank (panel assembly) having sufficient strength and stiffness with light weight ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Komaki in view of OIKAWA with Lindgren’s teaching of independently selecting tensile strength of the first material and the second material, such that
wherein tensile strength of a first starting material forming the single layer region is lower than tensile strength of a second starting material that is made to overlap the first starting material in the multi-layer region
because it has been held that to be obvious to try by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, in this case, choosing the same tensile strength for the first and second starting materials; choosing the tensile strength of the first starting material being lower than the tensile strength of the second starting material; or choosing the tensile strength of the first starting material being higher than the tensile strength of the second starting material, with a reasonable expectation of success, in this case, forming blank having sufficient strength and stiffness with light weight as taught by Lindgren, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. See MPEP 2143 l(E).
Regarding claim 4, Komaki further teaches wherein each of the starting materials (306, 307, and 314) is a steel material ([0002]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAITO JP2010158717A teaches a blank comprising a plurality of starting materials overlapping to each other and joined by laser welding in order to form a single layer region and a multi-layer region, wherein a laser welding zone is form on the multi-layer region, and each of two distal end of said laser welding zone is respectively located at an end portion of a respective opening formed at the multi-layer region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JINGCHEN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6639. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/JINGCHEN LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights