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
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 1-3, 5-7, 11, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coto et al. (US 2017/0087662, hereafter “Coto”) in view of Reatherford et al. (US 2008/0023529, hereafter “Reatherford”).
Regarding claim 1, Coto discloses a weld pad 210 for an ultrasonic welding system having a horn/sonotrode 208 (figs. 2-3, [0021]), the weld pad comprising: a base 211 (fig. 6) having an opening configured to receive a distal end of the sonotrode; and a welding component comprising a set of legs 222 and a bridge portion (knurled surface 226) therebetween, wherein the welding component is configured to conform to an outer surface of a weld substrate during a welding operation (see fig. 6 diagram below). Examiner notes that features of configured to receive a distal end… concerns functional limitation and do not structurally limit the weld pad itself. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). The weld pad of Coto includes an opening configured to receive a distal end of a horn/sonotrode; and a welding component configured to conform to a surface of a substrate/workpiece.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Coto is silent with respect to material of the welding component and changing shape. However, using a flexible material is known for weld pad in the ultrasonic welding art. Reatherford (also drawn to ultrasonic welding apparatus- abstract) teaches a clamp/weld pad 80 comprising knurled pad surfaces 83 (fig. 4), wherein the pad is made of flexible materials including plastics, polymers and copolymers such as PTFE; the particular material chosen for use depends on material wear life, vibration noise isolation and absorption qualities [0034]. Examiner notes that weld pad in Applicant’s invention is also fabricated from polymers (specification- [0050]). The welding component made of polymer material such as PTFE is configured to change shape and conform to a surface of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a flexible pad made of plastic or polymer material for the weld pad of Coto because doing so would enable to mitigate vibration, reduce noise occurring during the welding process and improve wear life, as suggested by Reatherford. Thus, Coto as modified by Reatherford discloses welding component made of plastic or polymer which would flex and change shape at least to some extent.
As to claim 2, Coto as modified by Reatherford in claim 1 above discloses weld pad legs made of plastic or polymer which would flex to some extent relative to the base. It is noted that any degree of flexing meets the claim.
As to claim 3, Coto discloses that each leg 222 in the set of legs is coupled to the base perpendicularly thereto (fig. 6).
As to claim 5, Coto shows that the bridge portion defines a sonotrode-contact surface (U-shaped central surface) and a workpiece-contact surface (knurled top surface) (see fig. 6).
As to claim 6, Coto shows that the sonotrode-contact surface (U-shaped central surface) is configured to contact a sonotrode and the workpiece-contact surface (knurled top surface) is configured to contact an outer surface of the substrate (fig. 6).
As to claim 7, Coto discloses the workpiece-contact surface defines a plurality of contact regions (plural regions in knurled top surface).
As to claim 11, Coto shows that the sonotrode-contact surface defines a flat/planar profile (not knurled profile).
As to claim 14, Coto discloses that the bridge portion defines a plurality of windows (plurality of gaps in the knurled regions).
Regarding claim 18, Coto discloses a weld pad 210 for an ultrasonic welding system having a horn/sonotrode 208 (figs. 2-3, [0021]), the weld pad comprising: a base 211 (fig. 6) having an opening configured to receive a distal end of the sonotrode; and a welding component comprising a set of legs 222 and a bridge portion (knurled surface 226) therebetween, wherein the welding component is configured to conform to and contact an outer surface of a weld substrate via a plurality of contact regions (plural knurled regions 226) during a welding operation (see fig. 6 diagram above). Also, note the claim interpretation in claim 1 above concerning the functional features of configured to receive a distal end…. ". Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. MPEP 2114.
Coto is silent with respect to material of the welding component and changing shape. However, using a flexible material is known for weld pad in the ultrasonic welding art. Reatherford (also drawn to ultrasonic welding apparatus- abstract) teaches a clamp/weld pad 80 comprising knurled pad surfaces 83 (fig. 4), wherein the pad is made of flexible materials including plastics, polymers and copolymers such as PTFE; the particular material chosen for use depends on material wear life, vibration noise isolation and absorption qualities [0034]. Examiner notes that weld pad in Applicant’s invention is also fabricated from polymers (specification- [0050]). The welding component made of polymer material such as PTFE is configured to change shape and conform to a surface of the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a flexible pad made of plastic or polymer material for the weld pad of Coto because doing so would enable to mitigate vibration, reduce noise occurring during the welding process and improve wear life, as suggested by Reatherford. Thus, Coto as modified by Reatherford discloses welding component made of plastic or polymer which would flex and change shape at least to some extent.
As to claim 19, Coto shows that the sonotrode-contact surface (U-shaped central surface) is configured to contact a sonotrode and the workpiece-contact surface (knurled top surface) is configured to contact an outer surface of the substrate (fig. 6).
Claims 4, 8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coto in view of Reatherford as applied to claims 1 & 18 above, and further in view of Rinker et al. (US 2018/0036832, hereafter “Rinker”).
As to claim 4, Coto does not disclose each leg in the set of legs being angled toward one another. However, such shape is known in the art. Rinker (also drawn to ultrasonic welding system) teaches a welding pad 220/320/420 (figs. 2-4) including a plurality of energy directors/projections formed by knurling (similar to knurling in Coto) and in the form of a straight pattern, an angled pattern (figs. 3-4), or a diamond-shaped pattern and arranged in a coarse, medium or fine density; the projections may be machined into the shape of hemispherical bodies, pyramids, truncated pyramids or other suitable shapes [0019]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any suitable shape from the shapes taught by Rinker, including angled pattern, for the legs in the weld pad of Coto since such shapes are art-recognized alternatives as evidenced by Rinker and would only have yielded predictable results of imparting the ultrasonic vibrations during a welding operation.
As to claim 8, Coto shows the plurality of contact regions being linear knurled regions, which encompasses linear ridge having a triangular profile. Nonetheless, such pad contact shapes are known in the art. Rinker teaches a welding pad 220/320/420 (figs. 2-4) including a plurality of energy directors or projections formed by knurling (similar to knurling in Coto) and in the form of a straight pattern, an angled pattern (figs. 3-4), or a diamond-shaped pattern and arranged in a coarse, medium or fine density; the projections may be machined into the shape of hemispherical bodies, pyramids, truncated pyramids or other suitable shapes [0019]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any suitable shape from the shapes taught by Rinker, including triangular or pyramidal, for the contact portions in the weld pad of Coto since such shapes are art-recognized alternatives as evidenced by Rinker and would only have yielded predictable results of imparting the ultrasonic vibrations during a welding operation. Thus, Coto as modified in light of Rinker renders the claim obvious.
As to claims 15 and 20, in one embodiment, Rinker shows the weld pad 320 having a plurality of windows, wherein each of the windows is formed as a quadrilateral cutout (fig. 3) and retains wires of various cross-sectional shapes (e.g. square, oval, hexagonal, etc.) without any gouging, scoring or witness marks in the resulting welded joint [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose quadrilateral cutout shape in the weld pad of Coto with the motivation to join wires of desired cross-sectional shape without any gouging, scoring or witness marks in the resulting welded joint, as suggested by Rinker.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s recent amendment overcomes 102 anticipation rejection from previous office action. The arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of 103 rejection(s) set forth above, which addresses the matter concerning changing shape challenged in the argument.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735