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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, support cannot be found for added feature that bridge portion is “suspended” between the set of legs. Examiner notes that Applicant has not pointed out support for this added limitation in the remarks filed 7/23/26. Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendment(s) made to the disclosure. See MPEP §714.02 and 2163.06. Without any suggestion in original specification, claimed bridge portion being suspended is not reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the claimed subject matter fails to comply with the written description requirement and constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-8, 11 and 14-15 lack support due to dependence on claim 1.
Applicant is requested to cancel this new matter.
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 Wang (US 9527236).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a weld pad 200 for an ultrasonic welding system 100 having a horn/sonotrode 106 (figs. 1-2, col. 3, lines 30-40, 50-60), the weld pad 200 (energy director) comprising: a base 202 having an opening 204 configured to receive a distal end of the sonotrode; and a welding component comprising a set of legs 206 and a bridge portion (between the legs) therebetween (see fig. 2 diagram below), wherein the welding component is configured to conform to an outer surface of a weld substrate 101 during a welding operation, wherein the welding component is configured to receive vibrations from the sonotrode and be welded to the weld substrate 101 (fig. 5; col. 10, lines 15-25). Examiner notes that the “weld pad for an ultrasonic welding system” (line 1) relates to intended use of the pad in ultrasonic welding; the pad may be utilized for other bonding purposes.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Concerning the weld pad material, Wang teaches that it is formed by molding and can be of any material described including metal, plastics or polymers (col. 6, lines 27-40)- exemplary polymer material includes polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (col. 6, lines 41-53). It is noted that weld pad in Applicant’s invention is also fabricated from polymers (specification- [0050]). The welding component made of polymer material such as HDPE is configured to bend, 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 polymer material (e.g. PE) for the weld pad & energy director 200 since such material is within teachings of Wang. Thus, Wang discloses the weld pad made of PE polymer which is configured to bend/flex and change shape at least to some extent during the ultrasonic welding.
As to claims 2-3, Wang discloses each leg 206 in the set of legs is coupled to the base perpendicularly thereto (fig. 2) and the legs made of polymer are configured to flex relative to the base. It is noted that any degree of flexing meets the claim.
As to claims 5-6, it is examiner’s position that the weld pad/energy director of Wang is not limited to particular position or workpieces and can be arranged in any manner depending on the type of workpieces as well as desired weld arrangement. For instance, the weld pad can be located between annular or open ring workpieces such that at least a portion of top surface of the weld pad is open to contact a sonotrode and at least a portion of bottom surface of the weld pad is open to contact a substrate or workpiece. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the weld pad positioned providing at least a portion of bridge surface open to contact a sonotrode and at least another portion of bridge surface open to contact a workpiece in order to direct the vibrations to desired region(s) in fabricating target weld joint between annular or open ring workpieces.
As to claim 7, Wang shows that the workpiece-contact surface defines a plurality of contact regions (figs. 2, 5).
As to claim 11, Wang shows that the sonotrode-contact surface defines a flat/planar profile (top surface- fig. 2).
As to claim 14, Wang shows that the bridge portion defines a plurality of windows (plurality of gaps between legs 206- fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses a weld pad 200 for an ultrasonic welding system 100 having a horn/sonotrode 106 (figs. 1-2, col. 3, lines 30-40, 50-60), the weld pad 200 (energy director) comprising: a base 202 having an opening 204 configured to receive a distal end of the sonotrode; and a welding component comprising a set of legs 206 and a bridge portion (between the legs) therebetween (see fig. 2 diagram above), wherein the bridge portion is configured to conform to & contact an outer surface of a weld substrate 101 via a plurality of contact regions during a welding operation, wherein the welding component is configured to receive vibrations from the sonotrode and be welded to the weld substrate 101 (fig. 5; col. 10, lines 15-25). Examiner notes that the “weld pad for an ultrasonic welding system” (line 1) relates to intended use of the pad in ultrasonic welding; the pad may be utilized for other bonding purposes.
Concerning the weld pad material, Wang teaches that it is formed by molding and can be of any material described including metal, plastics or polymers (col. 6, lines 27-40)- exemplary polymer material includes polyethylene (HDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) (col. 6, lines 41-53). 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 HDPE is configured to bend, 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 polymer material (e.g. PE) for the weld pad & energy director 200 since such material is within teachings of Wang. Thus, Wang discloses the weld pad made of PE polymer which is configured to bend/flex and change shape at least to some extent during the ultrasonic welding.
As to claim 19, it is examiner’s position that the weld pad/energy director of Wang is not limited to particular position or workpieces and can be arranged in any manner depending on the type of workpieces as well as desired weld arrangement. For instance, the weld pad can be located between annular or open ring workpieces such that at least a portion of top surface of the weld pad is open to contact a sonotrode and at least a portion of bottom surface of the weld pad is open to contact a substrate or workpiece. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the weld pad positioned providing at least a portion of bridge surface open to contact a sonotrode and at least another portion of bridge surface open to contact a workpiece in order to direct the vibrations to desired region(s) in fabricating target weld joint between annular or open ring workpieces.
Claims 4, 8, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1 & 18 above, and in view of Rinker et al. (US 2018/0036832, hereafter “Rinker”).
As to claim 4, Wang does not disclose each leg in the set of legs being angled toward one another. However, such shape is known in the art. Analogous to Wang, 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 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 Wang 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, Wang shows each of the plurality of contact regions being a ridge having a triangular profile (figs. 2-3) and open to several shapes (col. 11, lines 15-21). Different 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 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 Wang 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, Wang as modified by 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 Wang 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 are allowed.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Present claim 1 raises 112 new matter issue as explained above and so, arguments based on new matter are not convincing. Examiner also notes that new claims 21-22 appear to be allowable.
Regarding claims 18-19, Applicant argues:
The purpose of the energy director is to control the welding area between the two workpieces. Wang never discloses configuring the energy director to have at least one surface configured to contact the sonotrode. Additionally, it would not be obvious to do so given the repeated disclosures that the ED of Wang goes between two workpieces and the lack of motivation to do so. The Office Action does not explain how having a sonotrode contact a surface of the weld pad would provide a benefit over the existing Wang system.
In response, examiner contends that the “weld pad for an ultrasonic welding system” (line 1 of claims 1 and 18) relates to intended use of the pad in ultrasonic welding; the pad may be utilized for other bonding purposes. The weld pad/energy director of Wang is not limited to particular position or workpieces and can be arranged in any manner depending on the type of workpieces as well as desired weld arrangement. For instance, the weld pad can be located between annular or open ring workpieces such that at least a portion of top surface of the weld pad is open to contact a sonotrode and at least a portion of bottom surface of the weld pad is open to contact a substrate or workpiece. Accordingly, artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to position a weld pad such that at least a portion of bridge surface is open to contact a horn/sonotrode and at least another portion of bridge surface is open to contact a workpiece in order to direct the vibrations to desired region(s) in fabricating target weld joining annular or open rings.
Regarding Rinker, Applicant argues:
Regarding the rejections in view of Rinker, the Office Action identifies Rinker's welding pad 220/320/420 as the claimed welding pad. See Office Action at 6. However, pad 220/320/420 is not welded to anything. Instead, Rinker discloses welding a wire 44 to a substrate 42. Para [0013] and [0018]. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to modify Wang's energy director elements according to Rinker's welding pad because they serve different purposes. Wang's energy director elements are meant to weld with a workpiece, while Rinker's welding pad is meant to direct energy towards a wire to weld it to a substrate
In response, examiner submits that Wang already teaches weld pad being welded to at least a portion of one workpiece. Applicant’s above arguments against the Rinker reference individually amounts to piecemeal analysis. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Wang teaches weld pad being welded to a workpiece and Rinker was relied upon concerning the shape/geometry of legs in the weld pad.
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
Prosecution Insights