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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 22-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (JPH07124683A) in view of Interface Welding (https://www.interfacewelding.com/inertia-welding-process/#what-it-is; 1/25/2022 using wayback machine) and American Friction Welding (Linear Friction welding, https://teamafw.com/linear-friction-welding/, 6/27/2022 from wayback machine).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama discloses a method of joining a tool steel to a base material, comprising: providing a first workpiece formed of the tool steel (abstract); providing a second workpiece formed of the base material (abstract); forming an interface directly between the first and second workpieces without an interlayer (figure 1); applying a compressive force between the first and second workpieces; oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces to generate a friction force between the first and second workpieces (paragraph 0007-friction welding); and forming a solid-state joint between the first and second workpieces (paragraph 0007, abstract). Since Koyama discloses friction welding, it is the Examiner’s position that Koyama is actually performing the claims steps for friction welding.
If the Applicant does not agree that Koyama discloses the friction welding steps, Interface Welding shows applying a compressive force, generating a friction force and forming a solid-state joint (steps 1-4) during a friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a well-known friction welding process to ensure that a proper weld joint is created.
Koyama is silent to linearly oscillating and wherein the workpieces are not circular cross-sections. American Friction welding shows that it is known to linear friction welding metal materials including circular/round cross-sections together and rectangular cross-sections together (see images of American Friction Welding). Replacing one type of friction welding (rotary) with another type of friction welding (linear) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention because American Friction Welding states that linear motion produces and even, simultaneous resistance across the full surface of the weld interface. Furthermore, while Koyama shows circular cross-sections, it is clearly obvious to linear weld rectangular cross sections as shown by American Friction Welding. Determining the shape of the workpieces to be welded is a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal shape required for the final product.
Regarding claim 3, Interface Welding discloses applying the compressive force in an axial direction that is generally orthogonal to a linear direction of oscillation (Steps 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, Interface Welding discloses in a contact phase, wearing of surface asperities between the first and second workpieces (would inherently happen in initial part of step 2 when initial contact of the two workpieces during sliding). Interface Welding does not disclose wherein the compressive force results in a friction pressure of 40 MPa between the first and second workpieces. However, this appears to be a choice determined by the user. The current specification only gives this value as an example does not give criticality to the value. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the idea compressive force of a well-known required for contacting the workpieces in order to initiate the friction welding process. If the compressive force isn’t high enough then the weld may not be completed properly.
Regarding claim 5, Interface Welding discloses in a transition phase, causing a rapid increase in temperature and forming a plasticized layer between the first and second workpieces (step 2).
Regarding claim 6, Interface Welding discloses in a burn-off phase, expelling upset and axially shortening the first and second workpieces, and wherein the compressive force results (step 3).
Interface Welding does not disclose a burn-off pressure of between 40 and 360 MPa between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, this range is an example and the specification states that it is not limited to this range (specification paragraphs 0025-0030). This would indicate that the values are not critical to the invention and may be different based on the process or material being welded. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal burn off values based on the material being welded to ensure that the members are properly joined together and a proper burn off is created. Determining values of a known process would be known and easily determined to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Interface Welding discloses in a forge phase (step 3), stopping (decelerating=process of stopping) generating the friction force, and wherein the compressive force results (step 3).
Interface Welding does not disclose a forge pressure of between 40 and 360 MPa between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, this range is an example and the specification states that it is not limited to this range (specification paragraphs 0025-0030). This would indicate that the values are not critical to the invention and may be different based on the process or material being welded. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal forge values based on the material being welded to ensure that the members are properly joined together and a proper forge is created. Determining values of a known process would be known and easily determined to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Koyama discloses that the base material consists of a low alloy steel or a carbon steel (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, since Koyama discloses the same material (tool steel and carbon steel), it is the Examiner’s position that the joint has an ultimate tensile strength of greater than 100 MPa.
Regarding claims 22-23, Interface welding is silent to linearly oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces at a frequency of between 80 and 110 Hz (approximately 110 Hz) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, the process is not limited to the values claimed (paragraph 0023). This would indicate that the frequency values are not a critical value and is one that is easily determined by one skilled in the art based on the friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal frequency required for friction welding the components together based on the properties and material being welded.
Regarding claims 24-25, Interface welding shows stopping generating the friction force, and wherein the compressive force results in a forge pressure. Interface welding is silent to the pressure being between 90 and 360 MPa (or approximately 300 MPa) between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, the process is not limited to the values claimed (paragraph 0025). This would indicate that the pressure values are not a critical value and is one that is easily determined by one skilled in the art based on the friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal pressure required for friction welding the components together based on the properties and material being welded.
Regarding claims 26-27, Interface welding discloses in a forge phase, stopping generating the friction force, and wherein the compressive force results in a forge pressure linearly oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces at a frequency of between 80 and 110 Hz (or approximately 110 Hz) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces, and, in a forge phase, the compressive force results in a forge pressure of between 90 and 360 MPa (or approximately 300 MPa) between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, the process is not limited to the values claimed (paragraph 0023). This would indicate that the frequency values are not a critical value and is one that is easily determined by one skilled in the art based on the friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal frequency required for friction welding the components together based on the properties and material being welded. Furthermore, based on the current specification, the forge pressure process is not limited to the values claimed (paragraph 0025). This would indicate that the pressure values are not a critical value and is one that is easily determined by one skilled in the art based on the friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal frequency required for friction welding the components together based on the properties and material being welded.
Regarding claims 28-29, Interface does not disclose that linearly oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces at an amplitude of between 0.5 and 2.5 mm (approximately 2.0 mm) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces. However, based on the current specification, the process is not limited to the values claimed (paragraph 0025). This would indicate that the amplitude values are not a critical value and is one that is easily determined by one skilled in the art based on the friction welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal amplitude required for friction welding the components together based on the properties and material being welded.
Regarding claims 30-31, since Koyama discloses the same material (tool steel and carbon steel), it is the Examiner’s position that the joint has an ultimate tensile strength of greater than 500 MPa (or 1000 MPa).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (JPH07124683A) in view of Interface Welding (https://www.interfacewelding.com/inertia-welding-process/#what-it-is; 1/25/2022 using wayback machine) and American Friction Welding (Linear Friction welding, https://teamafw.com/linear-friction-welding/, 6/27/2022 from wayback machine) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the collective teachings of Gunzner (4,462,293) and Das et al. (1712253A).
Regarding claim 11, Koyama does not disclose prior to the steps of applying, heat treating at least one of the first and second workpieces. However, both Das and Gunzner disclose heat treating tool steel. Das discloses heat treating the tool steel prior to welding helps prevent oxidation deposits (column 6 lines 10-18). Gunzner discloses heat treating tool steel hardens the steel (page 4 lines 26-34). To one skilled in the art at the time the invention it would have been obvious to heat treat the tool steel prior to welding to prevent oxides and to achieve a tool steel with suitable mechanical properties for the final product.
Claim(s) 22-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (JPH07124683A) in view of Interface Welding (https://www.interfacewelding.com/inertia-welding-process/#what-it-is; 1/25/2022 using wayback machine) and American Friction Welding (Linear Friction welding, https://teamafw.com/linear-friction-welding/, 6/27/2022 from wayback machine) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (WO2021024687A1). This is an alternative rejection for claims 22-29 above.
Regarding claims 22-23, Interface is silent to linearly oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces at a frequency of between 80 and 110 Hz (or approximately 110 Hz) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces. However, Fujii discloses that it is known to linear friction weld components with a frequency of 100 Hz (approximately 110 Hz) (see computer translation). While Fujii may have a third material present, the process of linear friction welding at approximately the claimed value is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to try the claimed value in the instant application to in order to determine the ideal frequency required for friction welding the components.
Regarding claims 24-25 Interface discloses in a forge phase, stopping generating the friction force, and wherein the compressive force results in a forge pressure, but is silent to the force being between 90 and 360 MPa (or 300 MPa) between the first and second workpieces. However, Fujii discloses that it is known to linear friction weld components with a force less than 490 MPa (0.5x104 kg) (or approximately 300 MPa) (see computer translation). While Fujii may have a third material present, the process of linear friction welding that reads on the claimed value is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to try the claimed value in the instant application to in order to determine the ideal pressure required for friction welding the components.
Regarding claims 26-27, Interface discloses in a forge phase, stopping generating the friction force, and wherein the compressive force results in a forge pressure, but does not disclose linearly oscillating at least one of the first and second workpieces at a frequency of between 80 and 110 Hz (approximately 100 Hz) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces, and a forge pressure of between 90 and 360 MPa (approximately 300 MPa) between the first and second workpieces. However, Fujii discloses that it is known to linear friction weld components with a frequency of 100 Hz (approximately 110 Hz) (see computer translation). While Fujii may have a third material present, the process of linear friction welding at approximately the claimed value is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to try the claimed value in the instant application to in order to determine the ideal frequency required for friction welding the components. Furthermore, Fujii discloses that it is known to linear friction weld components with a force less than 490 MPa (0.5x104 kg) (approximately 300 MPa) (see computer translation). While Fujii may have a third material present, the process of linear friction welding that reads on the claimed value is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to try the claimed value in the instant application to in order to determine the ideal pressure required for friction welding the components.
Regarding claims 28-29, Interface is silent to the amplitude being between 0.5 and 2.5 mm (approximately 2.0 mm) to generate the friction force between the first and second workpieces. However, Fujii discloses that it is known to linear friction weld components with an amplitude of 1-2 mm (see computer translation). While Fujii may have a third material present, the process of linear friction welding at approximately the claimed value is known in the art and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to try the claimed value in the instant application to in order to determine the ideal amplitude required for friction welding the components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 22-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
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 ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735