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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0088708 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2003-162882 A).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches:
An ultrasonic joining horn [horn (31); 0007 and figures 1 and 2] that can generate ultrasonic vibration in a predetermined vibration direction, the ultrasonic joining horn comprising:
a base portion [portion of the horn having welding surface (311)];
only a single pressure contact portion [protrusion formation part (313)] having opposite ends in the vibration direction and opposite ends in a direction perpendicular to the vibration direction and being formed of a plurality of protrusions [protrusions (312)] that protrude from an upper surface [the unlabeled triangular surface pieces of welding surface (311) that abut the peripheral zigzagging protrusions] of the base portion, wherein
at each of the opposite ends of the pressure contact portion in the vibration direction, more than one of the plurality of protrusions are arranged adjacent to each other with a center of an upper surface of each of the more than one protrusions being positioned on a line perpendicular to the vibration direction [the peaks of the protrusions meet this as they are arrayed at an angle with respect to the vertical sides of the horn; see figures 1 and 2. Also, since this horn is used for welding metal it intrinsically vibrates in a plane parallel to the faying/bonding surfaces and thus either direction meets this claim. Furthermore, the direction of vibration is functional language as the horn can be vibrated in any desired direction],
each of the protrusions forming the pressure contact portion is formed into a pyramid shape [pyramid shape; 0064 and figures 1 and 2] or a truncated pyramid shape and the protrusions are arrayed,
when viewed from an upper side looking toward a lower side, at least a portion of a peripheral edge of the pressure contact portion in which the protrusions are arrayed has a zigzag shape [the edge of the peripheral zigzagging protrusions; see figure 1],
the portion of the peripheral edge with the zigzag shape portion is formed along at least one of the vibration direction and the direction perpendicular to the vibration direction [regardless of which way the horn vibrates either direction is met], and
the upper surface of the base portion has an exposed surface on which the plurality of protrusions is not formed [rectangular ring referred to by welding surface (311); figure 1].
Park does not teach:
a stand portion that rises from an upper surface of the base portion;
the plurality of protrusions that protrude from an upper surface of the stand portion; and
the upper surface of the base portion has an exposed surface on which the stand portion is not formed.
Concerning the stand portion:
Abe teaches the outer periphery of the tip portion of the horn (22B) has upper surface/lip (31) which is an exposed surface provided around the entire periphery of the working surface in order to control the occurrence of burrs; 0030-0033 and figures 4 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Abe lip concept into the rectangular ring of horn (31) in order to control the occurrence of burrs and/or to facilitate penetration. In doing so, a lip would extend around the entire periphery of the protrusion formation part forming a stand from which bonding protrusions (312) protrude.
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches:
wherein the protrusions are disposed so as to adjoin to each other without a flat groove between every adjacent ones of the protrusions [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches:
wherein when viewed from the upper side looking toward the lower side, the peripheral edge of the pressure contact portion in which the protrusions are arrayed does not have any one of a side extending parallel to the vibration direction and a side extending perpendicular to the vibration direction [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 8, Park does not teach:
wherein a ratio between a height (T1) of the stand portion from the upper surface of the base portion and a height (T2) of the protrusions from the upper surface of the stand portion is 5:1 to 1:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the ratio between the heights any desired ratio, including that claimed, in order to control the occurrence of burrs as desired, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, Park does not teach:
wherein a space above the exposed surface up to a height of the stand portion defines a burr accumulation portion, and a volume of the burr accumulation portion is larger than a volume of the pressure contact portion.
However, since the formation of the burr is proportional to the amount of material being displaced by the volume of the protrusions it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the volume above the lip equal to or larger than the volume of the protrusions in order to control the occurrence of the burrs.
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches:
wherein the width of the exposed surface in the vibration direction is equal to or larger than a height of the protrusions from the upper surface of the stand portion [the height of the protrusions is significantly less than either width of the rectangular ring].
Regarding claim 13, Park teaches:
wherein the base portion has a rectangular shape when viewed from the upper side looking toward the lower side [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches:
wherein an outer edge of the exposed surface has a rectangular shape [rectangular ring; figure 1].
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches:
wherein the zigzag shaped portion of the peripheral edge is not formed along the vibration direction [note that all four sides have a zigzag portion so 2 of the portions are not formed along the vibration direction].
Alternatively, the horn could be used to weld plastic which would require the horn to be vibrated vertically. In which case, none of the sides would be along the vibration direction.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Park et al. (US 2022/0088708 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2003-162882 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (WO 2019/1611902 A).
Regarding claim 7, Park does not teach:
wherein a boundary portion between the upper surface of the base portion and the peripheral wall of the stand portion is formed in a slope shape.
Lang teaches using a chamfered corner between a surface and wall of an ultrasonic component; figure 2A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to chamfer any corner between surfaces as taught by Lang, including that of the prior art lip, in order to reduce the stress on the inside corner or stress on the inside corner of a weld formed using the tool.
Claim 16, and alternatively claim 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Park et al. (US 2022/0088708 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2003-162882 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2016/0043360 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Park does not teach:
wherein only one of the plurality of protrusions is positioned at each of the opposite ends of the pressure contact portion in the direction perpendicular to the vibration direction.
Byun teaches two different horn patterns wherein the protrusions are arrange at an angle to the vibration direction/horn sides wherein horn (21) has a single protrusion on one end; figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the protrusions in any pattern, including that claimed, due to material size/orientation/shape and/or aesthetics, minus any unexpected results. Additionally, while the direction of vibration is functional language, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to orientate the protrusions in either direction perpendicular to vibration direction due to the workpieces on hand and/or aesthetics. Alternatively, this also reads on claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as 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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights