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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 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 1, last 3 lines: “the width of the elongated groove is substantially constant in the depth direction, and the size of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is substantially constant in the depth direction” is unclear. It is noted that the last lines of claim 1 require the use of both “the width of the elongated groove is substantially constant in the depth direction, and the size of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is substantially constant in the depth direction”. However, the previous limitations use “or” in multiplicity of locations including: “an elongated groove provided in the end face or a plurality of blind holes provided in the end face “ “a depth of the elongated groove or a depth of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is 0.5 mm or more and 20 mm or less”, etc. Accordingly, the last three lines of claim 1 are unclear as the use of “and” appears to require both sets of features, the groove and the plurality of blind holes but in an ambiguous manner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachman (1303919) in view of Ikegami et al (5304769). Lachman teaches (1) A welding electrode used for spot welding of a workpiece, wherein the welding electrode comprises an end face 2 provided so as to contact the workpiece, and an elongated groove 3 provided in the end face or a plurality of blind holes provided in the end face, a ratio (d/w) of the depth d of the elongated groove to a width w of the elongated groove or a ratio (d/s) of the depth d of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes to a size s of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is 2 or more [note the depth of groove 3 appears to be at least twice that of the width. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the depth to be at least twice that of the width, as taught by the illustration of Fig. 1, as an obvious matter of using the workable ratios in the art], the width of the elongated groove is substantially constant in the depth direction, and the size of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is substantially constant in the depth direction. (2) wherein the welding electrode comprises a plurality of grooves including the elongated groove 3, and the plurality of grooves are provided in a grid pattern [Figs. 2, 4]. Lachman do not teach a depth of the elongated groove or a depth of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is 0.5 mm or more and 20 mm or less, the width of the elongated groove or the size of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is 0.01 mm or more and 0.5 mm or less. Ikegami et al teach the depth of about less than 0.8 mm for the depth, noting that is for the deepest elongated groove. The width of the elongated groove is determined by the ratio of d/w of Lachman. When using 2-4.5 for the ratio of d/w, then the width w can be 0.8/2 0.8/3 0.8/4, 0.8/4.5 etc. and overlap with the claimed ranges for w. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed ranges of d (0.8), as taught by Ikegami, and to use the claimed range of w, as well as specific ratios of d/w of around 2-4.5, as an obvious matter of using the workable ranges in the art for the grooved electrode surface of Lachman. Lachman further do not teach (5) wherein the end face has a dome shape with a radius of curvature of 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less. Ikegami et al teach wherein the end face has a dome shape with a radius of curvature of 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less [Fig. 43]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the end face has a dome shape with a radius of curvature of 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less, as a typical configuration used in the art for electrode face, and which facilitates a target weld location. Lachman further do not show what is virtually inherent, i.e. (6) A welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode according to claim 1; and a power supply device electrically connected to the welding electrode, wherein the welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode. Ikegami et al teach A welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode 6 according to claim 1; and a power supply device [supplying electric current], see electrically connected to the welding electrode 6, wherein the welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode. Ikegami et al teach this is the standard practice in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode according to claim 1; and a power supply device electrically connected to the welding electrode, wherein the welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode, as taught by Ikegami et al, in order to utilize the welding electrode of Lachman with a practical welding apparatus that uses an electric power supply.
As for (7) wherein a ratio (d/w) of the depth d of the elongated groove to a width w of the elongated groove or a ratio (d/s) of the depth d of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes to a size s of each blind hole of the plurality of blind holes is 4 or more, is within the ordinary skill in the art, as treated above, and obvious to use as an obvious matter of using the workable ranges in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the claimed ranges of d/w or d/s of 4 or more, as an obvious matter of using the workable ranges in the art Lachman further do not teach (4) wherein the welding electrode comprises a plurality of grooves including the elongated groove, and the plurality of grooves or the plurality of blind holes are provided so that a density of the plurality of grooves or a density of the plurality of blind holes at a center of the end face is higher. Ikegami et al teach wherein the welding electrode comprises a plurality of grooves including the elongated groove, and the plurality of grooves or the plurality of blind holes are provided so that a density of the plurality of grooves or a density of the plurality of blind holes at a center of the end face is higher [see Fig. 16a, 16b, 16d as examples of higher density at center]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ wherein the welding electrode comprises a plurality of grooves including the elongated groove, and the plurality of grooves or the plurality of blind holes are provided so that a density of the plurality of grooves or a density of the plurality of blind holes at a center of the end face is higher, as taught by Ikegami et al, as an equivalent configuration used in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachman (1303919) in view of Ikegami et al (5304769), as applied above, and further in view of Oikawa et al (2020/0156179). Lachman does not teach 6) A welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode according to claim 1; and a power supply device electrically connected to the welding electrode, wherein the at least one welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode. Oikawa et al teach A welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode 1; and a power supply device [3 supplying electric current], see electrically connected to the welding electrode 1, wherein the welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ A welding apparatus comprising: at least one welding electrode according to claim 1; and a power supply device electrically connected to the welding electrode, wherein the welding electrode and the power supply device are configured to apply an output current of the power supply device to the workpiece via the welding electrode, as taught by Oikawa et al, as this is the standard practice in the art to supply power to the welding electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments concerning the combination of Lachman and Ikegami are not persuasive as they rely on all the ranges of Ikegami being utilized for the elongated groove, i.e. both the depth and width. However, only the depth of the elongated groove of Ikegami was applied, and the width determined by the predetermined ratio of Lachman. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments fail to persuade as the prior art in combination fairly teach the claimed invention.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights