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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/9/2023 and 10/9/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
The term “sufficient” in claims 1, 2, 11, 13, and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “the electrical current is sufficient to generate” is therefore indefinite, the limitation is understood as “the electrical current s”
In claim 2, the limitation “a sufficient surface area” is therefore indefinite, the limitation is understood as “a
In claim 11, the limitation “the electrical current is sufficient to generate” is therefore indefinite, the limitation is understood as “the electrical current s”
In claim 13, the limitation “a second electrode face surface area sufficiently large to overlap,” is therefore indefinite, the limitation is understood as “a second electrode face surface area
In claim 18, the limitation “the electrical current is sufficient to generate” is therefore indefinite, the limitation is understood as “the electrical current s”
The term “about” in claim 5 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 5, the term “an electrode surface area (ESA) about 1.5 to 5.0 times larger than a total of the surface contact areas,” is rendered indefinite, but for purposes of examination, the limitation is understood as “an electrode surface area (ESA)
In claim 6, the term “includes a width of about 0.5 to 5.0 mm” is rendered indefinite, but for purposes of examination, the limitation is understood as “includes a width of
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)(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gabbianelli (US6689982B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
406
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 7-10 of Gabbianelli
Regarding claim 1, Gabbianelli teaches a method of resistance spot welding, comprising:
providing a first metal workpiece (22) having a first faying surface and a first exterior surface opposite the first faying surface (Figs. 9, 10 where workpiece 18 has a faying surface and opposite surface);
providing a second metal workpiece (20) having a second faying surface and a second exterior surface opposite the second faying surface (Figs. 9, 10 where workpiece 20 has a faying surface and opposite surface);
wherein one of first faying surface and the second faying surface includes a plurality of projections (14, on faying surface of workpiece 20);
assembling the first metal workpiece (22) in overlapping arrangement with the second metal workpiece (18) such that the plurality of projections (14) are in contact with the other of the first faying surface and the second faying surface (Figs. 9, 10 );
applying a compression force against the first metal workpiece (22) and the second metal workpiece (18) to urge the first faying surface toward the second faying surface (Col. 7 lines 44-67 members 18, 22 under the axial pressure applied by the conductive members 46, 48); and
passing an electrical current through the first metal workpiece (22) and the second metal workpiece (18, Col. 7 lines 20-30 electrical current), wherein the electrical current is sufficient to generate and concentrate heat within the plurality of projections (14) to collapse the plurality of projections to establish a metallurgical joint to join the first metal workpiece (22) to the second metal workpiece (18; Col. 12 lines 1-15 no gap may exist and the connection 400 may be a continuous, homogenous connection between the weldable members 18 and 20. The combining of the metallic materials of the metal members 14, 18, 22 is indicated in the cross sectional view of FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Gabbianelli teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the compression force is applied by a pair of spot welding electrodes (Col. 7 lines 20-30 46, 48 modified resistance weld gun apparatus 28 includes a pair of current conducting members 46, 48) including a first electrode (48) having a first electrode face in contact with the first exterior surface of the first metal workpiece (22) and a second electrode (46) having a second electrode face in contact with the second exterior surface of the second metal workpiece (18); and
wherein at least one of the first electrode face and the second electrode (46, 48) face includes a sufficient surface area in contact with the first exterior surface and the second exterior surface, respectively, to overlap an entirely of the plurality of projections (14, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Gabbianelli teaches the method of claim 2, teaches wherein the first exterior surface is a planar first exterior surface and the second exterior surface is a planar second exterior surface (Fig. 10 exterior surfaces of workpieces 18 and 22 being planar).
Regarding claim 4, Gabbianelli teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first electrode face (48) is a planar first electrode face and operable to apply a first force against the planar first exterior surface (Fig.9)
and the second electrode face (46) is a planar second electrode face and operable to apply a second force against the planar second exterior surface (Fig. 9 where the planar portions of 46 are applied the planar exterior of 22).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2).
Regarding claim 5, Gabbianelli teaches the method of claim 2, wherein each individual projection (14) includes a surface contact area (Fig. 7)
wherein at least one of the first electrode face and the second electrode face (18, 22) includes an electrode surface area larger than a total of the surface contact areas of the plurality of projections (Fig. 8, 9 where the contact surface contact area of electrodes 46, 48 is larger than that of the surface areas of welding material members 14).
Gabbianelli is silent on wherein at least one of the first electrode face and the second electrode face includes an electrode surface area (ESA) about 1.5 to 5.0 times larger than a total of the surface contact areas (SCATotal) of the plurality of projections.
Gabbianelli teaches that the size of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes needs to be optimized according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member (Col. 4 lines 45-60). The size and shape of the welding material members is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the surface area of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes must be chosen according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member, so that the welding material members may be effectively melted (Col. 4 lines 45-60).Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Gabbianelli to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be Gabbianelli the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gabbianelli by making the first electrode face and the second electrode face include an electrode surface area about 1.5 to 5.0 times larger than a total of the surface contact areas of the plurality of projections as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Claims 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) in view of Wakamori (US10453587B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gabbianelli teach the method of claim 5, but Gabbianelli is silent on wherein an individual projection includes a width of about 0.5 to 5.0 mm, a height of greater than 0.5 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm.
Wakamori teaches wherein an individual projection includes a width (513b), a height (Ph), and a length (DPII).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to have an individual projection have a width, height, and length so that a bonding area between the two workpieces may be enlarged which increase bonding strength between the two workpieces (Wakamori Col. 5 line 60- Col. 6 line 10).
Wakamori does not teach an individual projection includes a width of about 0.5 to 5.0 mm, a height of greater than 0.5 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gabbianelli in view of Wakamori to have an individual projection includes a width of about 0.5 to 5.0 mm, a height of greater than 0.5 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 7, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 6, bu Gabbianelli is silent on teaches wherein the plurality of projections include at least one of a semi-sphere, a flat ring, a plurality of flat concentric rings, a raised rectangle, and a raised polygon having a trapezoid cross section.
Wakamori teaches the plurality of projections (13) include at least one of a semi-sphere, a flat ring, a plurality of flat concentric rings, a raised rectangle, and a raised polygon having a trapezoid cross section (Col. 4 lines 25-50 trapezoid shape).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to have the projections have a trapezoidal shape so that a bonding area between the two workpieces may be enlarged which increase bonding strength between the two workpieces (Wakamori Col. 5 line 60- Col. 6 line 10).
Regarding claim 8, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 1, but Gabbianelli is silent on wherein the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece are copper workpieces.
Wakamori wherein the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece are copper workpieces (Col. 6 liners 30-50 the first conductor and the second conductor contain copper).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to have the workpieces be copper as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 11, Gabbianelli teaches a method of joining overlapping workpieces, comprising:
providing a first metal workpiece (22) having a first faying surface and a first exterior surface opposite the first faying surface (Figs. 9, 10 where workpiece 18 has a faying surface and opposite surface);
providing a second metal workpiece (20) having a second faying surface defining a plurality of projections (14, on faying surface of workpiece 20) and a planar exterior surface opposite the second faying surface (Fig. 9 where workpiece 20 has a planar exterior surface opposite the second faying surface);
overlapping the first workpiece (22) and the second workpiece (20) such that the plurality of projections (14) of the second faying surface (20) are in contact with the first faying surface at a joining location where a metallurgical joint is ultimately established (Figs. 9, 10)
applying a compression force against the first metal workpiece (22) and the second metal workpiece (18) to urge the first faying surface toward the second faying surface (Col. 7 lines 44-67 members 18, 22 under the axial pressure applied by the conductive members 46, 48);
passing an electrical current through the first metal workpiece (22) and the second metal workpiece (18, Col. 7 lines 20-30 electrical current), wherein the electrical current is sufficient to generate and concentrate heat within the plurality of projections (14) to collapse the plurality of projections to establish a metallurgical joint to join the first metal workpiece (22) to the second metal workpiece (18; Col. 12 lines 1-15 no gap may exist and the connection 400 may be a continuous, homogenous connection between the weldable members 18 and 20. The combining of the metallic materials of the metal members 14, 18, 22 is indicated in the cross sectional view of FIG. 10).
Gabbianelli is silent on copper workpieces, a first copper workpiece, and a second copper workpiece.
Wakamori teaches copper workpieces (Col. 6 liners 30-50 copper), a first copper workpiece (11), and a second copper workpiece (12).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to apply the method to copper workpieces as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 12, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 11, and Gabbianelli teaches wherein the compression force is applied by a pair of spot welding electrodes (Col. 7 lines 20-30 46, 48 modified resistance weld gun apparatus 28 includes a pair of current conducting members 46, 48) including a first spot welding electrode (48) and a second spot welding electrode (46) having a planar second electrode face (Fig. 9);
wherein the planar second electrode face (48) is compressed against the planar second exterior surface of the second workpiece (Fig. 9 where the planar portions of 46 are applied the planar exterior of 22).
Gabbianelli is silent on the second copper workpiece.
Wakamori teaches the second copper workpiece (12 Col. 6 liners 30-50 copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to apply the method to a second copper workpiece as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Regarding claim 13, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 12, and Gabbianelli teaches wherein the planar second electrode (48) includes a second electrode face surface area (Fig. 9) sufficiently large to overlap an entirety of the plurality of projections (14) at the joining location (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 13, and Gabbianelli teaches wherein the plurality of projections (14) include a total surface contact area (Fig. 8 members 14 having a total surface contact area)
includes a ratio of ESA:SCATotal (Fig. 9, where the contact surface contact area of electrode 46,48 is larger than that of the surface areas of the plurality of members 14).
Gabbianelli is silent on a ratio of ESA:SCATotal of 1.5 to 5.0.
Gabbianelli teaches that the size of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes needs to be optimized according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member (Col. 4 lines 45-60). The size and shape of the welding material members is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the surface area of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes must be chosen according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member, so that the welding material members may be effectively melted (Col. 4 lines 45-60).Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Gabbianelli to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be Gabbianelli the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gabbianelli by making the first electrode face and the second electrode face include an electrode surface area about 1.5 to 5.0 times larger than a total of the surface contact areas of the plurality of projections as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) and Wakamori (US10453587B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US4315175A).
Regarding claim 9, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on wherein one of the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece is a copper workpiece and the other of the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece is an aluminum workpiece.
Hamilton teaches wherein one of the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece is a copper workpiece and the other of the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece is an aluminum workpiece (Fig. 3 aluminum and copper conductors).
Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Hamilton are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spot welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Hamilton to be applied to a first and second workpiece, one being aluminum and the other being copper, in order to provide a reliable electrical connection between aluminum and copper and eliminate the problem of premature failures (Hamilton Col. 3 lines 35-50).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) and Wakamori (US10453587B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman (US20190067648).
Regarding claim 10, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece are electrically conductive tabs for an electric vehicle.
Newman teaches wherein the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece ([0072-0073] first and second tabs) are electrically conductive tabs for an electric vehicle ([0004] electric vehicles).
Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Newman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of spot welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Newman to be applied to electrically conductive tabs for an electric vehicle in order to reduce the weight of the battery modules to make the electric vehicle propulsion system more efficient (Newman [0004]).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) in view of Wakamori (US10453587B2) and further in view of Sasaki (JP2002103056A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sasaki
Regarding claim 15, Gabbianelli and Wakamori teach the method of claim 14, but are silent on wherein the first faying surface of the first copper workpiece defines a plurality of first projections.
Wakamori teaches the first copper workpiece (12 Col. 6 liners 30-50 copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to apply the method to a first copper workpiece as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Gabbianelli and Wakamori are silent on the first faying surface of the first workpiece defines a plurality of first projections.
Sasaki teaches the first faying surface of the first workpiece (1) defines a plurality of first projections (1a, 1b).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to have the first faying surface also have a plurality of first projections that a weld joint may be obtained that reduces dust that may be between the two surfaces and create a clean joint appearance (Sasaki [0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Sasaki teach the method of claim 15, and Gabbianelli teaches wherein the first exterior surface opposite the plurality of first projections is a planar first exterior surface and wherein the first spot welding electrode includes a planar first electrode face and
wherein applying the compression force includes compressing the planar first electrode face against the planar first exterior surface of the first copper workpiece.
Wakamori teaches the first copper workpiece (12 Col. 6 lines 30-50 copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to apply the method to a first copper workpiece as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Gabbianelli and Wakamori are silent on wherein the first exterior surface opposite the plurality of first projections is a planar first exterior surface and wherein the first spot welding electrode includes a planar first electrode face and
wherein applying the compression force includes compressing the planar first electrode face against the planar first exterior surface of the first copper workpiece.
Sasaki teaches wherein the first exterior surface opposite the plurality of first projections (1a, 1b) is a planar first exterior surface (Fig. 1 exterior planar surface of workpiece 1) and
wherein the first spot welding electrode includes a planar first electrode face (3) and
wherein applying the compression force includes compressing the planar first electrode face (3) against the planar first exterior surface of the first workpiece (1).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to have the first faying surface also have a plurality of first projections opposite a planar first electrode so that a weld joint may be obtained that reduces dust that may be between the two surfaces and create a clean joint appearance (Sasaki [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Sasaki teach the method of claim 16, but Gabbianelli and Sasaki are silent on wherein at least one of the plurality of projections (14) includes a height of at least 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm.
Wakamori teaches wherein an individual projection includes a height (Ph), a base (513b), and a length (DPII).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Sasaki to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to have an individual projection have a base, height, and length so that a bonding area between the two workpieces may be enlarged which increase bonding strength between the two workpieces (Wakamori Col. 5 line 60- Col. 6 line 10).
Wakamori does not teach at least one of the plurality of projections have a height of at least 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gabbianelli and Sasaki in view of Wakamori to have an individual projection includes a height of at least 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 18, Gabbianelli teaches a method of resistance spot welding overlapping workpieces, comprising:
providing a first metal workpiece (22) having a first faying surface Fig. 9) and a planar first exterior surface opposite the plurality of first projections (Fig. 1 planar exterior surface);
providing a second metal workpiece (20) having a second faying surface defining a plurality of second projections (14, on faying surface of workpiece 20) and a planar exterior surface opposite the plurality of second projections (Fig. 1 where workpiece 2- has a faying surface and opposite projections);
overlapping the first workpiece (22) and the second workpiece (20) such that the plurality of second projections (14) of the second faying surface confronts the first faying surface (Fig. 9)
applying a first force against the planar first exterior surface (Fig. 9 workpiece 22) by a planar first electrode face (46) and applying a second force against the planar second exterior surface (Fig. 9 workpiece 20) by a planar second electrode face (48), thereby urging the first faying surface and the second faying surface together (Col. 7 lines 44-67 members 18, 22 under the axial pressure applied by the conductive members 46, 48);and
passing an electrical current through the first metal workpiece (22) and the second metal workpiece (18, Col. 7 lines 20-30 electrical current),
such that the electric current flows through the plurality second projections (14) to generate sufficient heat to effectuate a collapsing of the plurality of second projections (14) to bring the first faying surface and the second faying surface into a broader interfacial contact to establish a metallurgical join (18; Col. 12 lines 1-15 no gap may exist and the connection 400 may be a continuous, homogenous connection between the weldable members 18 and 20. The combining of the metallic materials of the metal members 14, 18, 22 is indicated in the cross sectional view of FIG. 10).
first faying surface defining a plurality of first projections
the plurality of first projections of the first faying surface confronts the second faying surface
Gabbianelli is silent on copper workpieces, a first copper workpiece, and a second copper workpiece, first faying surface defining a plurality of first projections, the plurality of first projections of the first faying surface confronts the second faying surface, current flows through the plurality first projections, collapsing of the plurality of first projections.
Wakamori teaches copper workpieces (Col. 6 lines 30-50 copper), a first copper workpiece (11), and a second coppper workpiece (12)
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to apply the method to copper workpieces as copper is known to be an advantageous component to be bonded in electrical devices (Col. 1 lines 20-40).
Sasaki teaches first faying surface (surface of workpiece 1, 1a, 1b)defining a plurality of first projections (1a, 1b), the plurality of first projections (1a, 1b) of the first faying surface (surface of workpiece 1, 1a, 1b) confronts the second faying surface (2a, 2b), current flows through the plurality first projections (1a, 1b), collapsing of the plurality of first projections ([0019] 1a, 1b are plasticized bringing the first and second surface together).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to have the first faying surface also have a plurality of first projections such that they are collapsed so that a weld joint may be obtained that reduces dust that may be between the two surfaces and create a clean joint appearance (Sasaki [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Sasaki each the method of claim 18, and Gabbianelli wherein the plurality of first projections )14_ include a total firsts surface contact area (Fig. 8 members 14 having a total surface contact area)
wherein the first electrode face includes a first electrode surface area greater than the total first projection surface contact area (Fig. 9, where the contact surface contact area of electrode 46,48 is larger than that of the surface areas of the plurality of members 14).).
Gabbianelli the plurality of first projections.
Sasaki teaches the plurality of first projections (1a, 1b).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Wakamori to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki to have plurality of first projections, defined as above, so that a weld joint may be obtained that reduces dust that may be between the two surfaces and create a clean joint appearance (Sasaki [0019]).
Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Sasaki are silent on wherein the first electrode face includes a first electrode surface area 0.5 to 1.5 times greater than the total first projection surface contact area.
Gabbianelli teaches that the size of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes needs to be optimized according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member (Col. 4 lines 45-60). The size and shape of the welding material members is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the surface area of the welding material members in relation to the contact area of the electrodes must be chosen according to shape and size of the overlapping surface areas of the two weldable member, so that the welding material members may be effectively melted (Col. 4 lines 45-60).Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Gabbianelli to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be Gabbianelli the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Regarding claim 20, Gabbianelli, Wakamori, and Sasaki teach the method of claim 19, but Gabbianelli and Sasaki are silent on where an individual projection includes a trapezoidal cross-sectional area having a height of greater than 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm.
Wakamori teaches wherein an individual projection includes a trapezoidal cross-sectional area (Fig. 4) having a height (Ph), a base (513b), and a length (DPII).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Sasaki to incorporate the teachings of Wakamori to have an individual projection have a base, height, and length so that a bonding area between the two workpieces may be enlarged which increase bonding strength between the two workpieces (Wakamori Col. 5 line 60- Col. 6 line 10).
Wakamori does not teach at least one of the plurality of projections have a height of at least 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Gabbianelli and Sasaki in view of Wakamori to have an individual projection includes a height of at least 0.55 mm, a base width of 0.5 mm to 5.00 mm, and a length of 5 mm to 20 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/10/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761