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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinella et al. [US 10,903,587].
Regarding claim 1, Spinella discloses a device for the contacting of a conductor with an electrical component, the device including: a flat conductor made of aluminum (fig. 4; 11); and a contacting element (figs. 1-2; 10) connectable in a material-bonded manner (Col 10 Ln 9; resistance spot welding) with the flat conductor (11), and the contacting element (10) comprises steel material (Col 9 Ln 28-30), the contacting element (10) is configured as a disk (figs. 1-2; 12 is configured as the disk part), the disk (12) includes a first side (see mark-up below from fig. 2; FS) opposite a second side (mark-up; SS), a friction aid (fig. 2; concave surface of 12 facing 11 in fig. 4) and an outer perimeter (mark-up; OP), the friction aid (concave surface of 12 facing 11 in fig. 4) defined on the first side (FS) and configured as conical or annular structure (both), and the outer perimeter (OP) includes at least one opening (figs. 1-2; H) defined on the second side (SS), for receiving the disk (12) in an insertion contour (fig. 4; S1) corresponding to a welding tool (fig. 4; 15a).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
Spinella does not explicitly disclose wherein the contacting element comprises a copper material.
However, Spinella teaches the contacting element (10) can be made out of a variety of materials including copper (Col 15 Ln 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the contacting element comprising a copper material as suggested by Spinella since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, and also for the benefit of improving conduction between two different contact parts once joined.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Spinella has been discussed above. Spinella discloses wherein the at least one opening (H) of the outer contour (outer convex surface of 12) of the disk (12) is configured as a notch (H is configured to fit S1 of 15a).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Spinella has been discussed above. Spinella discloses wherein the at least one opening (H) of the outer contour (outer convex surface of 12) of the disk (12) includes at least one angularly formed section (fig. 1; 16, see Col 9 Ln 26: pointed end 16).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Spinella discloses all of the claim limitations except wherein the at least one opening of the outer contour of the disk includes at least one longitudinally formed section [claim 4]; wherein the disk includes a centrally oriented bore, wherein the centrally oriented bore is configured as a slot [claim 5].
Regarding claims 4 and 5, alternative embodiments of Spinella teach the at least one opening (figs. 18-20 embodiment; top opening of 1110) of the outer contour (outer convex surface of 1110) of the disk (1110) includes at least one longitudinally formed section (fig. 19; floor of 1110 in the L direction); the disk (fig. 24 embodiment; 1410) includes a centrally oriented bore (fig. 24; 1442), wherein the centrally oriented bore (1442) is configured as a slot (central opening of 1442).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the at least one opening of the outer contour of the disk includes at least one longitudinally formed section or the disk including a centrally oriented bore, wherein the centrally oriented bore is configured as a slot as suggested by the alternative embodiments of Spinella because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the at least one opening including at least one longitudinally section and the disk with a central bore as a slot since applicant has not disclosed that either one of these configurations of the disk is critical to functionality of the invention and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the opening of the outer contour including at least one angularly formed section.
Regarding claims 6-8, Spinella discloses wherein the disk (12) can be made from a variety of materials one being copper (see Col 15 Ln 51-57).
Regarding claims 6-8, Spinella does not explicitly disclose wherein the disk is partially silvered. [claim 6]; wherein the disk is nickel-plated [claim 7]; wherein the disk is partially tinned [claim 8].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the disk being partially silver, nickel-plated or tin since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, and it would appear that the invention would work equally well with the disk being copper; also it would have been obvious for the benefit of improving conduction between two different contact parts once joined.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Spinella has been discussed above. Spinella discloses wherein the disk (12) has a shape contour (shape of 12 and H) for the realizing of a coding of a contacting point (fig. 4; area where 15a and 10 engage) of the disk (12).
Regarding claim 10, Spinella discloses a method for the contacting of a conductor with an electrical component, the method comprising: providing a flat conductor made of aluminum (11); and
material-bonded connecting of the flat conductor (11) with a contacting element (10), and the contacting element (10) comprising steel material (Col 9 Ln 28-30), the contacting element (10) is configured as a disk (figs. 1-2; 12 is configured as the disk part), the disk (12) includes a first side (FS) opposite a second side (SS), a friction aid (fig. 2; concave surface of 12 facing 11 in fig. 4) and an outer perimeter (OP), the friction aid (concave surface of 12 facing 11 in fig. 4) defined on the first side (FS) and configured as conical or annular structure (both), and the outer perimeter (OP) includes at least one opening (figs. 1-2; H) defined on the second side (SS), for receiving the disk (12) in an insertion contour (fig. 4; S1) corresponding to a welding tool (fig. 4; 15a).
PNG
media_image1.png
289
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mark-up
Spinella does not explicitly disclose wherein the contacting element comprises a copper material.
However, Spinella teaches the contacting element (10) can be made out of a variety of materials including copper (Col 15 Ln 51-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the contacting element comprising a copper material as suggested by Spinella since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, and also for the benefit of improving conduction between two different contact parts once joined.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Spinella has been discussed above. Spinella discloses wherein the material-bonded connecting (Col 10 Ln 9; resistance spot welding) is affected by welding.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Spinella discloses the welding is resistance spot welding (Col 10 Ln 9).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Spinella does not disclose the welding being rotational friction welding [claim 12]; welding being ultrasound welding [claim 13].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the welding being rotational friction or ultrasound welding because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have rotational friction or ultrasound welding since applicant has not disclosed that rotational friction or ultrasound welding is a substantially essential method of the invention and over resistance welding and it would appear that the invention would perform equally well with resistance welding; also it would have been obvious for the benefit of providing improved, high-strength, and time efficient joining methods without having to use filler metals for joining.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Spinella has been discussed above. Spinella discloses wherein the welding is resistance welding (Col 10 Ln 9; resistance spot welding).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant claims, “thus, it would not be an obvious matter of design choice to arrive at a flat conductor as claimed in Claims 1 and 10. Moreover, modifying Spinella to arrive at the flat conductor as claimed would interfere with and affect the sealing provided by the shape of the cap 12a, and Spinella provides that this sealing provided by the shape of the cap 12a "may significantly improve the corrosion performance and joint strength." Spinella: Col. 10, lines 49-56.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Attorney claims that modifying the flat conductor of Spinella would negatively affect the sealing provided by the cap; however, the 103 rejection consisted of modifying the material of contact element, not the flat conductor. Additionally, Spinella (Col 10 Ln 49-56) wouldn’t explicitly suggest a contact element that can be made from a variety of materials including copper if the materials would have a negative effect on the inventive concept. Therefore claims 1 and 10 remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARCUS E HARCUM whose telephone number is (571)272-9986. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Abdullah Riyami can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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.
/MARCUS E HARCUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights