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.
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, 3-5, 8, 11-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) in view of Schroth (US10532420B2).
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 generates and concentrates 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).
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).
Gabbianelli is silent on wherein the first workpiece is a first electrically conductive tab, wherein the second workpiece is a second electrically conductive tab, wherein one of the first faying surface and the second faying surface includes a plurality of projections integrally formed on one of the first faying surface and the second faying surface, wherein at least one of the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab comprises greater than 94 weight percent of copper, a first electrode face in direct contact with the first exterior surface of the first metal workpiece
a second electrode face in direct contact with the second exterior surface of the second metal workpiece, wherein at least one of the first electrode face and the second electrode face includes a surface area in direct contact with the first exterior surface and the second exterior surface, respectively.
Schroth teaches wherein the first workpiece (10) is a first electrically conductive tab (Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper), wherein the second workpiece (12) is a second electrically conductive tab (Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper),
wherein one of the first faying surface (18) and the second faying surface includes a plurality of projections integrally formed on one of the first faying surface and the second faying surface (Col. 9 lines 50-65 a cylindrical tool with a knurled surface over the first copper workpiece 10 to form the plurality of projections 24 on the first faying surface 18),
wherein at least one of the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab comprises greater than 94 weight percent of copper (Col. 7 lines 40-55 each of the first and second copper workpieces may be comprised of 99.9 wt % copper or greater);
a first electrode face (66) in direct contact with the first exterior surface (78) of the first metal workpiece (10), a second electrode face (70) in direct contact with the second exterior surface (80) of the second metal workpiece (12),
wherein at least one of the first electrode face (66) and the second electrode face (70) includes a surface area in direct contact with the first exterior surface (78) and the second exterior surface (80), respectively.
Gabbianelli and Schroth are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode welding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to have the metal workpieces be conductive copper tabs such that the electrodes are directly in contact with the back faces of the workpieces in order to be able to reliably join two workpieces that are particularly valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 1, and Gabbianelli 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 and Schroth teach the method of claim 3, Gabbianelli teaches 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).
Regarding claim 5, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 2, and Gabbianelli teaches 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) 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 as modified by Schroth to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be 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 as modified by Schroth 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).
Regarding claim 8, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 1, but Gabbianelli is silent on wherein the first metal workpiece and the second metal workpiece are copper workpieces.
Schroth wherein both of the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab comprise greater than 94 weight percent of copper (Col. 7 lines 40-55 each of the first and second copper workpieces may be comprised of 99.9 wt % copper or greater).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to have the metal workpieces be conductive copper greater than 94 weight percent of copper in order to be able to reliably join two workpieces that are particularly valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
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, providing a second copper workpiece having a second faying surface defining a plurality of projections integrally formed on the second faying surface, wherein at least one of the first copper workpiece and the second copper workpiece is an electrically conductive tab comprising greater than 94 weight percent of copper.
Schroth teaches copper workpieces (10, 12), a first copper workpiece (12, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper), a second copper workpiece (10, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper),
providing a second copper (10) workpiece having a second faying (18) surface defining a plurality of projections integrally formed on the second faying surface (Col. 9 lines 50-65 a cylindrical tool with a knurled surface over the first copper workpiece 10 to form the plurality of projections 24 on the first faying surface 18),
wherein at least one of the first copper workpiece and the second copper workpiece is an electrically conductive tab comprising greater than 94 weight percent of copper (Col. 7 lines 40-55 each of the first and second copper workpieces may be comprised of 99.9 wt % copper or greater);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to have the metal workpieces be copper tabs with integrally formed protrusions with a copper percentage greater the 94 weight percent in order to be able to reliably join two workpieces that are particularly valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Regarding claim 12, Gabbianelli and Schroth 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 to the planar exterior of 22).
Gabbianelli is silent on the second copper workpiece.
Schroth teaches the second copper workpiece (10, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to apply the method to a second copper workpiece as copper is valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Regarding claim 13, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 12, and Gabbianelli teaches wherein the planar second electrode (48) includes a second electrode face surface area (Fig. 9) to overlap an entirety of the plurality of projections (14) at the joining location (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, Gabbianelli and Schroth 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 Gabbianelli as modified by Schroth to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be 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 as modified by Schroth 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).
Regarding claim 21, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 1, but Gabbianelli is silent on wherein at least one of the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab includes a thickness of between 1.0 mm to 4.0 mm.
Schroth teaches wherein at least one of the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab includes a thickness of between 1.0 mm to 4.0 mm (Col. 7 lines 40-50 first and second copper workpieces 10, 12 may have a thickness 101, 121 that ranges from 1.0 mm to 4.0 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to have the first electrically conductive tab and the second electrically conductive tab includes a thickness of between 1.0 mm to 4.0 mm as the dimension is valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) and Schroth (US10532420B2) in view of Wakamori (US10453587B2).
Regarding claim 6, Gabbianelli and Schroth teach the method of claim 5, but Gabbianelli and Schroth are silent on wherein an individual projection includes a width of 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 and Schroth 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).
Gabbianelli, as modified by Schroth in view of 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, as modified by Schroth 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) (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claim 7, Gabbianelli, Schroth, and Wakamori teach the method of claim 6, but Gabbianelli and Schroth are 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 and Schroth 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).
Claims 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) in view of Schroth (US10532420B2) 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 Schroth 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.
Schroth teaches the first copper workpiece (12, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to apply the method to a first workpiece that is copper is valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Gabbianelli and Schroth 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 Schroth 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, Schroth, 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.
Schroth teaches the first copper workpiece (12, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper),
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to apply the method to a first copper workpiece as copper is valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
Gabbianelli and Schroth 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 Schroth 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 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.
Schroth teaches copper workpieces (10, 12), a first copper workpiece (12, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper), a second copper workpiece (10, Col. 10 lines 40-50 electrically conductive, copper).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Gabbianelli to incorporate the teachings of Schroth to have the metal workpieces be copper workpieces as they are valuable in those instances where the protection of nearby heat-sensitive materials is an issue (Schroth Col. 2 line 1-10).
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 Schroth 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, Schroth, 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 is silent on the plurality of first projections.
Sasaki teaches the plurality of first projections (1a, 1b).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gabbianelli and Schroth 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, Schroth, 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 Gabbianelli to have the relationship between the groove surface area and contact area of the electrode to be the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabbianelli (US6689982B2) in view of Schroth (US10532420B2) and Sasaki (JP2002103056A) and further in view of Wakamori (US10453587B2).
Regarding claim 17, Gabbianelli, Schroth, 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, Schroth, 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).
Gabbianelli as modified by Schroth, and Sasaki, 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 as modified by Schroth, 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 20, Gabbianelli, Schroth, and Sasaki teach the method of claim 19, but 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, Schroth, 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).
Gabbianelli, as modified by Schroth and Sasaki, in view of Wakamori do 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, as modified by Schroth 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 6/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1, 11, and 18 under Gabbianelli '982 in view of Wakamori '587 and/or Sasaki (JP2002103056A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gabbianelli in view of newly cited reference Schroth (US10532420B2) and further in view of Wakamori '587 and/or Sasaki (JP2002103056A).
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 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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 8/21/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights