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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noboru et al. (JP2014110099A).
With regard to claim 1, Noboru teaches, as shown in figures 8(a)-9(b) and taught on page 8 line 39-40: “A fastening structure (shown in figure 4(a)) comprising: a first fastened member 35 containing pure aluminum or an aluminum alloy; a second fastened member 41a containing metal; and a fastening member 4 that fastens and fixes the first fastened member 35 and the second fastened member 41a to each other, wherein a protrusion 35d… is integrally formed on a surface of the first fastened member 35 facing the second fastened member 41a, the protrusion 35d containing pure aluminum or an aluminum alloy and protruding toward the second fastened member 41a, and the pure aluminum or the aluminum alloy in the protrusion 35d on the first fastened member 35 directly contacts and adheres to the metal in the second fastened member 41a”.
Noboru does not teach the protrusion “having a height in a range of 5µm to 1mm”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the protrusion to have a height in the range of 5µm to 1mm to control the contact pressure (Noboru, page 9 lines 15-20). Also, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 4, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru also teaches, as shown in figures 8(a)-9(b) and taught on page 10 lines 20-33: “wherein the protrusion 35d on the first fastened member 35 and the second fastened member 41a are in contact with each other without interposing an oxide film therebetween (page 10 lines 20-33 teaches any oxide film present would be removed)”.
With regard to claim 5, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru also teaches, as shown in figures 8(a)-9(b): “wherein each of the first fastened member 35 and the second fastened member 41a includes a hole (35a and where 4 extends through 41a in figure 9(a)) through which the fastening member 4 is inserted, and the protrusion 35d is provided in plurality, and the plurality of protrusions 35d on the first fastened member 35 are arranged in a periphery of the hole 35a”.
With regard to claim 6, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 5”, as shown above.
Noboru also teaches, as shown in figures 4(a) and 8(a)-9(b): “wherein when viewed along a lamination direction of the first fastened member 35 and the second fastened member 41a, the hole of each of the first fastened member 35 and the second fastened member 41a has a substantially circular shape, and the plurality of protrusions 35d on the first fastened member are arranged to face each other with a center of the hole 35a therebetween”.
With regard to claim 7, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru does not specifically teach: “wherein the protrusion on the first fastened member satisfy a condition of mathematical formula 1 below, σy ≤ F/x ≤σuts where σy is offset yield strength (N/mm2) of the first fastened member, F is axial force (N) of the fastening member, x is an area (mm2) of an initial contact point of the protrusion to the second fastened member, and σuts is tensile strength (N/mm2) of the first fastened member”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the protrusion to satisfy mathematical formula 1 in order to provide enough strength of force between the first and second fastening members without causing damage to the fastened members or the fastening member. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regard to claim 8, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru also teaches, as shown in figures 8(a)-9(b): “wherein at least one of the first fastened member 35 or the second fastened member is a bus bar”.
With regard to claim 9, Noboru teaches: “…comprising: the fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru also teaches, as shown in figures 8(a)-9(b): “An aluminum wiring member (shown in figure 9(a))”.
With regard to claim 10, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru does not teach: “wherein a second protrusion is integrally formed on a surface of the second fastened member facing the first fastened member, the second protrusion protruding toward the first fastened member”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the protrusion 35d on the fastened member in order to lower contact resistance (Noboru, page 7 last 4 lines and page 8 line 1). Also, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noboru et al. (JP2014110099A) in view of Akira et al. (JP2014002977A).
With regard to claim 3, Noboru teaches: “The fastening structure according to claim 1”, as shown above.
Noboru does not teach: “wherein the second fastened member is a fastened member having a surface subjected to a tin plating treatment”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Akira teaches, as shown in figures 8(A) -8(B) and taught in the Abstract: “wherein the second fastened member 70 is a fastened member having a surface subjected to a tin plating treatment 73”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Akira with the invention of Noboru in order to reduce contact resistance (Akira, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, the Applicant argues that the limitation “a protrusion having a height in a range of 5µm to 1mm” is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the references Noboru. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since changing the size of a structure is an obvious modification of existing prior art.
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 JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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 A 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights