DETAILED ACTION
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, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupp (DE 648 791).
As to claim 1, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly comprising:
a first component 8; and
a second component 9 configured to be coupled to the first component,
wherein the first component and the second component are coupled through a first linear stitch 10 and a second linear stitch 13 disposed parallel to the first linear stitch,
wherein the first linear stitch is linearly offset from the second linear stitch so the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch (Figure 2).
Krupp fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm. Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Krupp wherein the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm, as Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claims 4 and 13, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein the first linear stitch 10 and the second linear stitch 13 are vertical stitches (Figure 2).
As to claims 5 and 14, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein the first linear stitch 10 and the second linear stitch 13 are horizontal stitches (Figure 2).
As to claims 9 and 16, Krupp fails to explicitly disclose that the weldment assembly is incorporated within a vehicle.
It is well-known and readily-apparent within the art to utilize linear weld stitches to couple vehicle components; welding providing for secure coupling of the vehicle components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the weldment assembly disclosed by Krupp within a vehicle, as it is well-known and readily-apparent within the art to utilize linear weld stitches to couple vehicle components in order to provide for secure coupling of the vehicle components.
As to claim 10, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly comprising:
a first component 8; and
a second component 9 configured to be coupled to the first component,
wherein the first component and the second component are coupled through a first linear stitch 10 and a second linear stitch 13, the first linear stitch and the second linear stitch being disposed parallel to one another,
wherein the first linear stitch extends in a first direction past the second linear stitch and the second linear stitch extends in a second direction past the first linear stitch, and
wherein the first direction is opposite the second direction (Figure 2).
Krupp fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm. Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Krupp wherein the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm, as Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
As to claim 15, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein a length of the first linear stitch 10 and a length of the second linear stitch 13 are the same (Figure 2).
Claims 7, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupp in view of Daimler (US 10 2013 001 213).
As to claims 7 and 11, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein the first linear stitch is formed in a first direction and the second linear stitch is formed in a second direction, opposite the first direction.
Daimler teaches a weldment assembly wherein a first component 10 and a second component 11 are coupled by a first linear stitch 30 formed in a first direction 36 and a second linear stitch 32 formed in a second direction 38, opposite the first direction; welding of the first and second linear stitches in opposite directions preventing bulging between the first and second sheet metal components (Figures 3-5; paragraphs [0031-0033]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Krupp wherein the first linear stitch is formed in a first direction and the second linear stitch is formed in a second direction, opposite the first direction, as taught by Daimler, in order to prevent bulging between the first and second sheet metal components.
As to claim 17, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly forming a component for a vehicle, the weldment assembly comprising:
a first component 8; and
a second component 9 configured to be coupled to the first component,
wherein the first component and the second component are coupled through a first linear stitch 10 and a second linear stitch 13 disposed parallel to the first linear stitch,
wherein the first linear stitch is linearly offset from the second linear stitch so the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch, and
wherein the first component and the second component are coupled through a welding process, wherein the welding process is one or more of a fusion welding process, a laser beam welding process, an electron beam welding process, a solid-state welding process, a friction stir welding process, and an adhesive bonding process (Figure 2).
Krupp fails to explicitly disclose that the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm. Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween.
Applicant is reminded that a change in the size of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance disclosed as to the specific size of an element, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Krupp wherein the first and second linear stitches are disposed approximately 5-12.5mm apart and each have a length of approximately 20-25mm, and wherein the first linear stitch extends beyond the second linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm and the second linear stitch extends beyond the first linear stitch by approximately 2-7mm, as Krupp does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific length of the first and second linear stitch, nor the spacing therebetween, and as such change in size is a design consideration within the skill of the art that would yield expected and predictable results; and as it would be expected that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment to arrive at the optimum or workable dimensions for a given application.
Krupp fails to disclose an assembly wherein the first linear stitch is formed in a first direction and the second linear stitch is formed in a second direction, opposite the first direction.
Daimler teaches a weldment assembly wherein a first component 10 and a second component 11 are coupled by a first linear stitch 30 formed in a first direction 36 and a second linear stitch 32 formed in a second direction 38, opposite the first direction; welding of the first and second linear stitches in opposite directions preventing bulging between the first and second sheet metal components (Figures 3-5; paragraphs [0031-0033]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly disclosed by Krupp wherein the first linear stitch is formed in a first direction and the second linear stitch is formed in a second direction, opposite the first direction, as taught by Daimler, in order to prevent bulging between the first and second sheet metal components.
As to claim 18, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein the first linear stitch 10 and the second linear stitch 13 are vertical stitches (Figure 2).
As to claim 19, Krupp discloses a weldment assembly wherein the first linear stitch 10 and the second linear stitch 13 are horizontal stitches (Figure 2).
As to claim 20, Krupp fails to explicitly disclose that the weldment assembly is incorporated within a vehicle.
It is well-known and readily-apparent within the art to utilize linear weld stitches to couple vehicle components; welding providing for secure coupling of the vehicle components. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the weldment assembly disclosed by Krupp within a vehicle, as it is well-known and readily-apparent within the art to utilize linear weld stitches to couple vehicle components in order to provide for secure coupling of the vehicle components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (10:00 am-7:00 pm EST).
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
12/20/25
/MICHAEL P FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619