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 Objections
Claim 1, line 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “made of steel” should be - -made of a second steel- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “of dissimilar materials” should be - - of the dissimilar materials - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a first sheet made of an Al-based material or an Mg-based material” should be - - the first sheet made of the Al-based material or the Mg-based material- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a second sheet made of ultra-high tensile steel having a tensile strength” should be - - the second sheet made of the ultra-high tensile steel having the tensile strength - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a hole” should be - - the hole - -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 10-12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a joining auxiliary member made of steel, the joining auxiliary member being inserted into the hole provided in the first sheet and having a hollow portion penetrating in a direction orthogonal to the overlapping surface” should be - - the joining auxiliary member made of the second steel, the joining auxiliary member being inserted into the hole provided in the first sheet and having the hollow portion penetrating in a direction orthogonal to the surface- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a weld metal” should be - - the weld metal - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2019150831 A using English translation US 20200384567) in view of Fujimoto (US 20200290149).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an arc spot welding method for joining dissimilar materials (The materials of Figure 1A; 10 and 20), in which a first sheet (Figure 1A; 10) made of an Al-based material or an Mg-based material (Paragraph 0018) and a second sheet (Figure 1A; 20) made of a first steel (Paragraph 0039) are joined, the arc spot welding method comprising:
forming a hole (Figure 1B; 11) in the first sheet;
overlapping the first sheet and the second sheet (Figure 1B);
inserting a joining auxiliary member (Figure 2; 30) made of a second steel (Paragraph 0213), in which a hollow portion (Figure 2; 33) penetrating in a sheet thickness direction (The sheet thickness direction) of the first sheet and the second sheet is formed, into the hole provided in the first sheet; and
joining the first sheet and the second sheet via the joining auxiliary member by using a welding material (The material of Figure 1A; 40) containing 13 mass% or more of Ni (Paragraph 0178 uses AWS A5.14 which uses Nickel or Nickel-Alloys. Nickel has a mass of at least 13% mass of Nickel)
wherein the joining the first sheet and the second sheet is melting the second sheet and the joining auxiliary member and melting the welding material to fill the hollow portion of the joining auxiliary member with weld metal (The weld metal is Figure 1B; 40 and the melted portions of 20 and 30, Paragraph 0165).
Suzuki does not disclose the second sheet made of ultra-high tensile steel having a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more.
However, Fujimoto teaches a welding method (Abstract) wherein
a second sheet (Figure 1; 10) made of ultra-high tensile steel having a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more (Paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Suzuki wherein the second sheet made of ultra-high tensile steel having a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more as taught by and suggested by Fujimoto in order to provide steel with raised strength (Paragraph 0053, the modification uses a steel with a tensile strength of 1200 MPa).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses wherein the joining auxiliary member has a stepped outer shape (The stepped shape of Figure 2; 30) having an insertion portion (Figure 2; 31) and a non-insertion portion (Figure 2; 32), and the hollow portion is formed in a manner of penetrating the insertion portion and the non-insertion portion (The hollow portion is formed in this manner).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses wherein in the joining the first sheet and the second sheet, any one of the following welding methods (a) to (e) is used:
(a) a gas-shielded arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a wire of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0022);
(b) a non-gas arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a wire of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0023);
(c) a gas tungsten arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a filler of a non-consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0024);
(d) a plasma arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a filler of a non-consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0025); and
(e) a coated arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a welding electrode of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses wherein in the joining the first sheet and the second sheet, any one of the following welding methods (a) to (e) is used:
(a) a gas-shielded arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a wire of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0022);
(b) a non-gas arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a wire of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0023);
(c) a gas tungsten arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a filler of a non-consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0024);
(d) a plasma arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a filler of a non-consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0025); and
(e) a coated arc welding method in which the welding material is used as a welding electrode of a consumable electrode type (Paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses a weld joint (The weld joint of Figure 1A) of the dissimilar materials, which is joined by the arc spot welding method for joining dissimilar materials according to claim 1, the weld joint comprising:
the first sheet made of the Al-based material or the Mg-based material;
the second sheet made of the first steel (In the combined invention of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto this is the ultra-high tensile steel) having the tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more; and
a joint portion (The joint portion that joins the first and second sheet which includes at least the joining auxiliary member and the weld metal) where the first sheet and the second sheet are joined,
wherein the first sheet has the hole facing a surface (The bottom surface of 1B; 10) to overlap the second sheet, and
the joint portion includes
the joining auxiliary member made of the second steel, the joining auxiliary member being inserted into the hole provided in the first sheet and having the hollow portion penetrating in a direction (The direction of the hollow portion which is orthogonal to the surface) orthogonal to the surface, and
the weld metal which includes a part of the joining auxiliary member (Paragraph 0165) and a part of the second sheet (Paragraph 0165) and with which the hollow portion of the joining auxiliary member is filled.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses wherein the joining auxiliary member has a stepped outer shape (The stepped shape of Figure 2; 30) having an insertion portion (Figure 2; 31) and a non-insertion portion (Figure 2; 32), and the insertion portion is inserted into the hole provided in the first sheet (Figure 1B).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weng (US 20200216973)
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki further discloses wherein in step of joining the first sheet and the second sheet, the weld metal is melted into the second sheet until a state where a bead appears (Paragraph 0021).
Suzuki in view of Fujimoto does not teach wherein the bead is black.
However, Weng teaches wherein a bead is black (Paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto wherein the bead is black as taught by and suggested by Weng in order to provide a more consistent operation and improved production efficiency (Paragraph 0014, The modification allows the bead to be black and cleans the black bead using the method described in Weng).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Fujimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama et al (US 20190388995)
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki in view of Fujimoto teaches the invention as claimed.
Suzuki in view of Fujimoto does not teach wherein the second sheet has a heat-affected zone at a position adjacent to the joint portion,
a maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is 130% or more with respect to an average hardness of an area of the second sheet excluding the heat-affected zone, and
a maximum hardness of the weld metal is 50% or less with respect to the average hardness
However, Kodama teaches wherein a second sheet (Figure 1; 14) has a heat-affected zone (Figure 2; HAZ) at a position adjacent to a joint portion (Figure 2; B),
a maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is more with respect to an average hardness (The average hardness of an area of the second sheet excluding the heat-affected zone) of an area of the second sheet excluding the heat-affected zone, and
a maximum hardness (The maximum hardness of Figure 2; Welded Metal) of a weld metal (Figure 2; Welded Metal) is less with respect to the average hardness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto wherein a second sheet has a heat-affected zone at a position adjacent to a joint portion, a maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is more with respect to an average hardness of an area of the second sheet excluding the heat-affected zone, and a maximum hardness of a weld metal is less with respect to the average hardness as taught by and suggested by Kodama in order to improve the fatigue strength of the welded portions (Paragraph 0004, the modification has a HAZ where the maximum hardness of the second sheet in the HAZ is increased with respect to the other portions of the second sheet and the hardness of the weld metal is decreased with respect to the other portions of the second sheet).
Suzuki in view of Fujimoto and Kodama does not teach wherein the maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is 130% or more; and the maximum hardness of the weld metal is 50% or less.
However, Kodama teaches in Paragraph 0047 that the increase of hardness in the HAZ of the base material with respect to the base material is a results-effective variable that controls occurrence of cracks and in Paragraph 0052 that the softening (or decrease in hardness) of the weld metal with respect to the base material is a results-effective variable that controls the strength of the joint. A particular parameter is a result-effective variable when the variable is known to achieve a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6,8 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, an ordinary skilled worker would recognize that the increase of hardness in the HAZ of the base material with respect to the base material is a results-effective variable that controls occurrence of cracks and the softening (or decrease in hardness) of the weld metal with respect to the base material is a results-effective variable that controls the strength of the joint. Thus, the claimed limitation of wherein the maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is 130% or more; and the maximum hardness of the weld metal is 50% or less is found to be an obvious optimization of the prior art obtainable by an ordinary skilled worker through routine experimentation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the weld joint of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto and Kodama to have the required relative hardnesses, as it involves only adjusting a hardness of the second sheet and weld metal of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto and Kodama disclosed to require adjustment.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The presence of a known result-effective variable would be a motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See KSR; MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Suzuki in view of Fujimoto and Kodama wherein the maximum hardness of the heat-affected zone is 130% or more; and the maximum hardness of the weld metal is 50% or less in order to optimize hardness of the heat-affected zone and weld metal (The modification has the claimed relative hardnesses).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights