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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimoto et al., hereafter Fujimoto (JP 2010012504).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a system for joining a first part and a second part together with a weld structure, the system comprising:
a welding element configured to form the weld structure between the first part and the second part (paragraph 0062 – YAG laser welding machine as welding element); and
a control module configured to operate the welding element to form the weld structure to include the following (paragraph 0062 – YAG laser welding machine is known to include control module):
a first curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes first curved end);
a second curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes second curved end);
a connecting portion connecting the first curved end and the second curved end (Fig. 9h #12);
a first curved crown spaced apart from the first curved end and concentric with the first curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes first curved crown); and
a second curved crown spaced apart from the second curved end and concentric with the second curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes second curved crown);
wherein the first curved end, the second curved end, and the connecting portion are between the first curved crown and the second curved crown (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 3, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the first part and the second part are components of a vehicle body (paragraphs 0002,0054).
Regarding Claim 4, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the welding element is one of a laser welding element, an electron beam welding element, and an arc welding element (paragraph 0062 – YAG laser welding machine as laser welding element).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the first part and the second part each include at least one of zinc coated steel, steel, aluminum, copper, nickel, titanium, high entropy alloys (HEAs), and a polymer (paragraph 0011 - first part and second part are each steel).
Regarding Claim 6, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses the first curved end and the second curved end have an identical first arc radius (Fig. 9h #12);
the first curved crown and the second curved crown have an identical second arc radius (Fig. 9h #11); and
the first curved crown is spaced apart from the first curved end at a first distance and the second curved crown is spaced apart from the second curved end at a second distance that is the same as the first distance (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 7, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the first curved crown is spaced apart from the first curved end at 10mm or less, and the second curved crown is spaced apart from the second curved end at 10mm or less (paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the connecting portion is linear (Fig. 9h #12).
Regarding Claim 12, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein a maximum chord length of the first curved end is less than a maximum crown chord length of the first curved crown (Fig. 9h #11,12).
Regarding Claim 13, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein each one of the first curved end and the second curved end extend along a curve of at least 180° (Fig. 9h #12).
Regarding Claim 14, Fujimoto discloses a weld structure joining a first part to a second part, the weld structure comprising:
a first curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes first curved end);
a second curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes second curved end);
a connecting portion connecting the first curved end and the second curved end (Fig. 9h #12);
a first curved crown spaced apart from the first curved end and concentric with the first curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes first curved crown); and
a second curved crown spaced apart from the second curved end and concentric with the second curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes second curved crown);
wherein:
the first curved end and the second curved end have an identical first arc radius (Fig. 9h #12);
the first curved crown and the second curved crown have an identical second arc radius (Fig. 9h #11); and
the first curved crown is spaced apart from the first curved end at a first distance and the second curved crown is spaced apart from the second curved end at a second distance that is the same as the first distance (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 16, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 14 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein a maximum chord length of the first curved end is less than a maximum crown chord length of the first curved crown (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 17, Fujimoto discloses a weld structure joining a first part to a second part, the weld structure comprising:
a first curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes first curved end);
a second curved end (Fig. 9h #12 – second laser-welded portion includes second curved end);
a connecting portion connecting the first curved end and the second curved end (Fig. 9h #12);
a first curved crown spaced apart from the first curved end and concentric with the first curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes first curved crown); and
a second curved crown spaced apart from the second curved end and concentric with the second curved end (Fig. 9h #11 – first laser-welded portion includes second curved crown);
wherein:
the first curved end and the second curved end have an identical first arc radius and an identical first maximum chord length; (Fig. 9h #12);
both the first curved end and the second curved end extend at least 180° (Fig. 9h #12);
the first curved crown and the second curved crown have an identical second arc radius and an identical second maximum chord length; and (Fig. 9h #11); and
an entirety of the first curved crown is spaced apart from the first curved end at a first distance and an entirety of the second curved crown is spaced apart from the second curved end at a second distance that is the same as the first distance. (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 19, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 17 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein the first maximum chord length is less than the second maximum chord length (Fig. 9h).
Regarding Claim 20, Fujimoto discloses all the limitations of Claim 17 above. Fujimoto further discloses wherein:
the first curved end and the first curved crown are concentric about a first radial center (Fig. 9h);
the second curved end and the second curved crown are concentric about a second radial center (Fig. 9h); and
the first radial center and the second radial center are aligned along a line extending parallel to the connecting portion (Fig. 9h).
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.
Claims 8-9, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto
Regarding Claim 8, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Fujimoto fails to explicitly teach wherein the first curved crown is spaced apart from the first curved end at 2mm – 6mm, and the second curved crown is spaced apart from the second curved end at 2mm – 6mm.
Fujimoto does teach the bead center distance between each of the first laser welded portion and the second laser welded portion is {0.2 Ln (t) +0.3} (mm) or more and {Ln (t) +1.5} (mm) or less, in order to provide good tensile shear strength and peel strength (paragraph 0038).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the first curved crown could be spaced apart from the first curved end at 2mm – 6mm, and the second curved crown could be spaced apart from the second curved end at 2mm – 6mm, as Fujimoto teaches spacing of {0.2 Ln (t) +0.3} (mm) or more and {Ln (t) +1.5} (mm) or less will provide good tensile shear strength and peel strength (paragraph 0038), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above. However, Fujimoto fails to explicitly teach wherein:
the first curved end and the second curved end each have a first arc radius of 2.5mm; and
the first curved crown and the second curved crown each have a second arc radius of 5.5mm.
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 (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). As the only difference between the claim and Fujimoto is the relative arc radii of the first and second curved ends and crowns, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the first curved end and second curved end taught by taught by Fujimoto could each have an arc radius of 2.5mm, and the first curved crown and second curved crown taught by taught by Fujimoto could each have an arc radius of 5.5mm, as such a change in size would not cause the weld structure to perform differently (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding Claim 11, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Fujimoto fails to teach wherein a maximum chord length of each of the first curved end, the second curved end, the first curved crown, and the second curved crown is the same.
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 (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). As the only difference between the claim and Fujimoto is the relative maximum chord length of the first and second curved ends and first and second curved crowns, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the maximum chord length of the ends and crowns taught by Fujimoto could be set equal to each other, as such a change in size would not cause the weld structure to perform differently (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 14 above.
However, Fujimoto fails to teach wherein a maximum chord length of each of the first curved end, the second curved end, the first curved crown, and the second curved crown is the same.
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 (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). As the only difference between the claim and Fujimoto is the relative maximum chord length of the first and second curved ends and first and second curved crowns, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the maximum chord length of the ends and crowns taught by Fujimoto could be set equal to each other, as such a change in size would not cause the weld structure to perform differently (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding Claim 18, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above.
However, Fujimoto fails to teach wherein the first maximum chord length and the second maximum chord length are the same.
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 (See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). As the only difference between the claim and Fujimoto is the relative first and second maximum chord lengths, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the first and second maximum chord lengths taught by Fujimoto could be set equal to each other, as such a change in size would not cause the weld structure to perform differently (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Yang et al., hereafter Yang (DE 112016007229).
Regarding Claim 2, Fujimoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Fujimoto fails to teach wherein the first part and the second part are components of a vehicle battery support tray.
Fujimoto does teach that the first and second part are components of a vehicle body (paragraph 0002).
Yang teaches a system for joining a first and second part together with a weld structure, where the first and second part can be components of any part that can be installed on a vehicle (paragraph 0004). Fujimoto and Yang are analogous prior art as they each relate to joining first and second parts with a weld structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the first and second part taught by Fujimoto could be components of a vehicle battery support tray, as Yang teaches that such weld structures are well known in the art for connecting components of vehicle parts such as a battery support tray (Yang paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schwab (US 8557436) teaches welding a vehicle battery support tray.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights