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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/2/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because cited application 2018-34166 does not show up in the Japanese database as being a JP document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 3, 6, and 8 are photographs, see MPEP 608.02
(b) Photographs.—
(1) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), auto- radiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
(2) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS52114446A Michihiro in view of US 20180015571 A1 Wang
Regarding claim 1,
Michihiro teaches, except where struck through,
An arc spot welding method for joining dissimilar materials (page 1 teaches spot welding using a dc spot welder, for joining a first sheet (plate-shaped member 2) made of steel and a second sheet (base material 1) made of nonferrous metal (page 2 par. 3 teaches steel and aluminum),
wherein the first sheet has a flat base portion and an upright wall standing on the base portion (figs. 1 to 4), and the base portion has a through-hole (hole 3),
and the method comprises:
a superimposing step of superimposing the base portion on the second sheet such that the second sheet is exposed through the through-hole (page 2 par. 3 teaches superimposing the plates and MIG welding through the through hole 3; figs. 1 to 4);
and a filling and welding step of filling the through-hole with a molten weld metal at a target position (page 2 par. 3, the target position is the space where hole 3 is located) (page 2 par. 3).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Michihiro does not teach: a target position shifted from a center of the through-hole in a direction opposite to the upright wall.
Wang teaches a method of welding using a welding wire that travels on an eccentric (double-semi-circumferential arc shaking trajectory 8 and circular arc shaking trajectory 10) path inside a hole (groove 9) where the location of arc (1) is a target position and it is therefore shifted from a center of the through-hole in a direction because the location of arc 1 varies in a location according to double-semi-circumferential arc shaking trajectory 8 and circular arc shaking trajectory 10 per par. 14 of Wang.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michihiro with the arc shaking trajectory 8 and/or circular arc shaking trajectory 10 of Wang such that the target location of Wang oscillates to a position opposite to the upright wall of base material 1 of Michihiro to achieve good practicability of a weld seam (Wang par. 5).
Regarding claim 2,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Michihiro does not teach: wherein a distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall and a distance X between the center of the through-hole and the target position satisfy 0.5/log(1 + D)≤ X.
Wang teaches an eccentric (double-semi-circumferential arc shaking trajectory 8 and circular arc shaking trajectory 10) path inside a hole (groove 9) where the location of arc (1) where the circular arc shaking trajectory 10 is taught in Wang to also be a reciprocating circular arc with a midpoint O1i with a path between A1i and A2i such that the path taught swings in an arc where part of arc satisfies the relationship where the target position is a distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall and a distance X between the center of the through-hole and the target position satisfy 0.5/log(1 + D)≤ X.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michihiro with the circular arc shaking trajectory 10 of Wang such that the target location of Wang oscillates to a position opposite to the upright wall of base material 1 of Michihiro to achieve good practicability of a weld seam (Wang par. 5).
Regarding claim 3,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Michihiro does not teach: wherein a distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall and a distance X between the center of the through-hole and the target position satisfy X≤5.0/log(1 + D).
Wang teaches an eccentric (double-semi-circumferential arc shaking trajectory 8 and circular arc shaking trajectory 10) path inside a hole (groove 9) where the location of arc (1) where the circular arc shaking trajectory 10 is taught in Wang to also be a reciprocating circular arc with a midpoint O1i with a path between A1i and A2i such that the path taught swings in an arc where part of arc satisfies the relationship where the target position is a distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall and a distance X between the center of the through-hole and the target position satisfy X≤5.0/log(1 + D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michihiro with the circular arc shaking trajectory 10 of Wang such that the target location of Wang oscillates to a position opposite to the upright wall of base material 1 of Michihiro to achieve good practicability of a weld seam (Wang par. 5).
Regarding claim 4,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that does not teach: wherein the distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall is 15 mm or less.
Michihiro as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the distance D between the center of the through-hole and the upright wall is 15 mm or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to process a through-hole with a distance to neighboring objects at 15mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art as evidenced by the positioning of the through-hole of Michihiro per figs. 1 to 4 . One would have been motivated to process a through-hole with a distance to neighboring objects at 15mm or less for the purpose of processing a workpiece with a specific design at various through-hole locations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7,
Michihiro teaches, wherein the second sheet is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, and the weld metal is aluminum or an aluminum alloy (page 2 par. 3).
Regarding claim 8,
Michihiro as modified teaches, a dissimilar material welded joint formed by the arc spot welding method for joining dissimilar materials according to claim 1 (weld metal 5).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS52114446A Michihiro in view of US 20180015571 A1 Wang US20220407187A1 Chung
Regarding claim 5,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Michihiro as modified does not teach: wherein an excess weld of the weld metal is formed on a front side of the first sheet in the filling and welding step, the excess weld has a flange portion extending to an outer peripheral side from a peripheral surface of the through-hole, and an amount of extension W1 of the flange portion from the peripheral surface of the through-hole toward an upright wall side and an amount of extension W2 of the flange portion from the peripheral surface of the through-hole in a direction opposite to the upright wall satisfy 0.4 ≤ W1/W2 ≤2.5.
Chung teaches welding through a hole 150c through plate 150a to electrode tab 120 per par. 85 to 87 and further teaches wherein an excess weld (weld material 170 fig. 9) of the weld metal is formed on a front side of the first sheet in the filling and welding step (fig. 9 teaches an asymmetric welding bead 170 with lengths L1 and L2), and further teaches the excess weld has a flange portion extending to an outer peripheral side from a peripheral surface of the through-hole, and an amount of extension W1 of the flange portion from the peripheral surface of the through-hole toward an upright wall side and an amount of extension W2 of the flange portion from the peripheral surface of the through-hole in a direction opposite to the upright wall satisfy 0.4 ≤ W1/W2 ≤2.5 (par. 90 teaches the relationship between L1 and L2 to be a ratio between 1:1 and 1:1.2 which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weld 5 of Michihiro as modified by Wang per the teachings of Chung to be asymmetric to provide a weld bead with satisfactory welding strength (Chung par. 90).
Regarding claim 6,
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Michihiro as modified does not teach: wherein 0.7 ≤ W1/W2≤ 1.4 is satisfied.
Chung teaches welding through a hole 150c through plate 150a to electrode tab 120 per par. 85 to 87 and further teaches wherein 0.7 ≤ W1/W2≤ 1.4 is satisfied (par. 90 teaches the relationship between L1 and L2 to be a ratio between 1:1 and 1:1.2 which is within the range disclosed in the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weld 5 of Michihiro as modified by Wang per the teachings of Chung to be asymmetric to provide a weld bead with satisfactory welding strength (Chung par. 90).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights