CTNF 18/549,275 CTNF 93813 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant canceled claims 1-15 in a preliminary amendment. Claims 16-30 are currently being examined. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 20 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20: “a wave crest” should read as – the [[a]] wave crest. Claim 30: “at least in regions” should read as – at least in the regions --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 27-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada et al. 20170349221 . Regarding independent claim 27, Yamada teaches a component connection (Figs. 1A-2), comprising: a first component (14), wherein the first component is comprised of an aluminum material ([0042] describes side outer panel 14 as formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy); and a second component (12), wherein the second component is comprised of a steel material ([0028] describes the roof side rail may be steel; [0040] describes roof side rail 12 is made from an iron material and [0070] and [0071] describe roof side rail 12 being made of steel), wherein the first component and the second component are fastened to one another along a joining region (22, 26 in Fig. 1B; 14 and 12 are fastened to one another along joining region 22, 26), and wherein the first component in the joining region at least in regions (14a of 14 of first junction 22 of joining region described in [0044] and 14b of 14 of second junction 26 of joining region described in [0045], with 14a and 14b shown in Fig. 1B) has an adhesive layer (24; [0050] describes 24 as tightly adhering to 14, i.e., 14 is an adhesive layer and assists in joining 14 to 12 per [0060]-[0061], and [0051] describes 24 is applied to the surface of 14 as shown in Fig. 3A such that each of 14a, 14b has an adhesive layer 24) which is generated by a thermal spraying method (as described in [0052] adhesion layer 24 is generated by a cold spray method, i.e., a thermal spraying method, in light of instant specification [0011]); wherein the second component is fastened to the adhesive layer by pressure welding (as shown in Fig. 3C and described in [0055]-[0056], 12 is fastened to 24 by spot welding, i.e., by pressure welding, in light of instant specification [0006]-[0007]. Regarding claim 28, Yamada further teaches the adhesive layer along the joining region has alternating wave crests and wave troughs (the joining region includes regions 14a and 14b, and along each of 14a and 14b adhesive layer 24 includes a wave trough alternating with a wave crest such that the joining region has alternating wave crests and wave troughs) and wherein at least one welding spot is respectively disposed on the wave crests (as seen in Fig. 3C and as described in [0055]-[0056], a welding spot is respectively disposed on the wave crest of each region). PNG media_image1.png 182 614 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 30, Yamada further teaches the first component and the second component are adhesively bonded at least in regions along the joining region (as shown in Figs. 1B, 2 and 3C, 14 and 12 are adhesively bonded in regions 14a and 14b along joining region 22 and 26 via adhesive layer 24 and weld nugget 36) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16-21, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. 20170349221 in view of Brown et al. 20170297136 . Regarding independent claim 16, Yamada teaches a method for joining components (Figs. 3A-3C illustrate method steps of joining components shown in Figs. 1A-1B for a vehicle 10), comprising the steps of: providing a first component (14), wherein the first component is an aluminum component ([0042] describes side outer panel 14 as formed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy) and wherein the first component has a joining region (end portions of 14 where 14 is joined with component 12 as shown in Fig.1B) for disposing and fastening a second component (12; 12 is shown fastened to 14 in Fig. 2); generating at least in regions (14a of first junction 22 and 14b of second junction 26 in Fig. 1B; [0049] describes that 22 and 26 are the same in that the both are subjected to the junction through the metal layer 24) an adhesive layer (24; [0050] describes 24 as tightly adhering to 14, i.e., 14 is an adhesive layer and assists in joining 14 to 12 per [0060]-[0061]) on the joining region by a thermal spraying method (as shown in Fig. 3A and described in [0052] metal layer 24 is formed on joining region of 14 by a cold spray method, i.e., a thermal spraying method, in light of instant specification [0011]) ; and fastening the second component to the adhesive layer by joining by pressure welding (as shown in Fig. 3C and described in [0055]-[0056], 12 is fastened to 24 by joining by spot welding, i.e., by pressure welding, in light of instant specification [0006]-[0007]. Yamada is silent regarding the first component is die-cast aluminum. Brown teaches an aluminum die-cast part which may be coated per [0028], in particular a structural component for a motor vehicle which may be resistance spot welded to a steel component as shown in Fig. 3 and as described in [0036]. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first component in the invention of Yamada be an aluminum die-cast component as taught by Brown as suitable for use in a structural component of a vehicle. Regarding claim 17, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the pressure welding is resistance spot welding (Yamada [0055]-[0056]). Regarding claim 18, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and teaches the thermal spraying method is cold gas spraying (Yamada [0052]). Regarding claim 19, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and Yamada further teaches the adhesive layer extends along the joining region such that the adhesive layer along the joining region has a profiled surface, a structured surface, or a wave profile (as seen in annotated Fig. 3A, 24 extends along joining region of 14 in a wave profile) and wherein a region of a wave crest (labeled in annotated Fig. 3A) of the adhesive layer is resistance spot welded (as seen in Fig. 3C and as described in [0060]-[0061], a region of the wave crest is resistance spot welded). PNG media_image1.png 182 614 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 20, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far regarding a ratio of a height of a wave crest to a height of a wave trough is in a range from 1.05 to 2.7. Yamada further teaches in Fig. 4 coating thicknesses in mm of the adhesive layer 24 are plotted versus strength of tight adhesion such that the coating thickness, i.e., thickness of adhesive layer 24, is a result effective variable which affects strength of adhesion of the adhesive layer to the aluminum component. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the adhesive layer of Yamada to improve strength of adhesion of the adhesive layer to the aluminum die-cast component of Yamada in view of Brown. Brown further teaches a thickness of the aluminum die-cast component may be from 0.3 mm to about 6.0 mm as described in [0027], and that the aluminum die-cast component may be an aluminum die-cast vehicle roof component to be secured to the steel lower portion of a vehicle body per [0036]. Yamada also teaches the aluminum component 14 is a roof panel to be secured to second component 12 which is a steel component per [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the aluminum die-cast component of Yamada in view of Brown be within a range of from 0.3 mm to about 6.0 mm as taught by Brown as a known range of aluminum die-cast component thickness for use in construction of a vehicle roof having a roof panel which is an aluminum die-cast component that is resistance spot welded to a steel component. As seen in annotated Fig. 3A of Yamada a wave trough is at a top surface of 14 and a height of the wave trough measured from a bottom surface of 14 equals a thickness of 14 which may be called “T”, and a height of the wave crest measured from the bottom surface of 14 to a top surface of adhesive layer 24 equals “T” plus a thickness of adhesive layer 24 which may be called “t”, such that height of the wave trough is T and height of the wave crest is T+ t, and a ratio of the height of the wave crest to the height of the wave trough is (T+t)/T = 1 + t/T. PNG media_image2.png 187 614 media_image2.png Greyscale In choosing a design appropriate thickness of the aluminum die-cast component and optimizing the thickness of the adhesive layer, a ratio of a height of a wave crest to a height of a wave trough results in being in a range from 1.05 to 2.7 as claimed. For at least one example, with a thickness T of 2.0 mm from a range of T being from 0.3 mm to about 6.0 mm, and with a thickness t of 1.0 mm from Fig. 4 of Yamada, a ratio of the height of the wave crest to the height of the wave trough is 1 + 1/2 which equals 1.5 which is within the range from 1.05 to 2.7. Regarding claim 21, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and Yamada further teaches the profiled surface, the structured surface, or the wave profile is generated by an adapted advancement speed while generating the adhesive layer (as seen in annotated Fig. 3A, the wave profile begins with and ends with a wave trough at the surface of 14 with the adhesive layer 24 formed with the respective wave crest in between at each of regions 14a, 14b such that an advancement speed adapts from a speed of application of the adhesive layer 24 as the cold spray moves along the respective region forming the wave crest and then to stopping, i.e., zero speed, of the cold spray application at the end of the adhesive layer 24 in the respective region, i.e., advancement speed is adapted from an application speed to a zero speed while generating the adhesive layer 24; in Fig. 3C and as described in [0047], D1 is a maximum diameter of adhesive layer 24 and is less than diameter D2 of electrodes 56a, 56b, which implies adhesive layer 24 is applied in a circular area where resistive spot welding takes place at each region of joining region of 14). Regarding claim 23, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and teaches fastening the second component to the joining region by additional joining by adhesive bonding (12 is fastened to joining region of 14 by welding nugget 36 joining through adhesive layer 24 which is adhesively bonded to joining region, i.e., additional joining by adhesive bonding). Regarding claim 26, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above and teaches providing the first component with a surface treatment ([0028] describes the aluminum die-cast substrate may be coated, i.e. provided with a surface treatment). Yamada in view of Brown also teaches removing in regions the surface treatment by and while generating the adhesive layer in light of instant specification [0051] which recites: “ "coatings" can in particular be removed or subtracted by way of the thermal spraying method. In other words, a surface treatment of any type does not interfere with the application of the adhesive layer, whereby the preferably high gas temperatures of more than 800°C, in particular preferably approximately 1000°C, of the gas jet, in particular during cold gas spraying, also come to bear at this point.” Since Yamada teaches the adhesive layer is generated by cold gas spraying which is the same thermal spraying method of Applicant, the surface treatment in regions on the first component of Yamada in view of Brown is removed by and while generating the adhesive layer as claimed . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. 20170349221 in view of Brown et al. 20170297136 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Irissou et al. 20210187618 . Regarding claim 22, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above but does not explicitly teach the generating of the adhesive layer is by way of a material application in a plurality of tracks disposed next to one another. Irissou teaches cold spray (CS) is an industrialized process for applying coatings to a substrate per [0002], and teaches generating a coating by cold spray is by way of a material application in a plurality of tracks disposed next to one another (per [0002] a tool path is used to deposit a bead or track of coating material on the surface of a substrate; a tool path is a program dictating how the cold spray nozzle is scanned over the substrate to deposit the bead or track, usually in a collection of “passes” to build up the coating and a pass is understood to refer to a collection of adjacent trajectories, i.e., a plurality of tracks disposed next to one another, that define a single layer of a coating). "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR at 1396. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the method of Yamada in view of Brown the generating of the adhesive layer is by way of a material application in a plurality of tracks disposed next to one another as taught by Irissou as applying a known technique involving cold spraying for application of a coating to predictably define a layer of the adhesive layer on the joining region . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. 20170349221 in view of Brown et al. 20170297136 as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. 20170232548 . Regarding claim 24, Yamada in view of Brown teaches all that is claimed above but does not explicitly teach applying cement to and/or beside the adhesive layer. Carlson teaches a method of adhesive weld bonding a light metal workpiece and a steel workpiece per [0005] such as for structural components of vehicle assemblies per [0002], and per [0006] the light metal workpiece may be aluminum alloy and the method includes applying a plurality of discrete adhesive ribbons, i.e., cement, to the faying surface of the light metal workpiece and the plurality of discrete adhesive ribbons may comprise a plurality of discrete adhesive ribbons in the form of annuluses, with each annulus of adhesive surrounding a spot weld location. The cement is provided to promote weld nugget stiffness and fatigue performance per [0003] but is located away from the spot weld sites so as not to cause defects, e.g., filler residue, char, and ash, that can be attributed to the thermal decomposition of residual adhesive at the spot weld location that can even magnify the complications associated with other defects such as surface oxide residues per [0026] caused by the presence of a mechanically tough, electrically insulating, and self-healing refractory oxide layer (or layers) on the aluminum/magnesium workpiece per [0004]. Each of the adhesive ribbons may be a heat curable epoxy or some other curable adhesive composition per [0008]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yamada in view of Brown to include applying cement to and/or beside the adhesive layer as taught by Carlson to promote weld nugget stiffness and fatigue performance but not cause residual adhesive to contribute to defects in the location of the spot weld. Regarding claim 25, Yamada in view of Brown and further in view of Carlson teaches all that is claimed above and Carlson further teaches the cement is distributed while positioning the second component on the joining region and by a force introduction during the pressure welding (per [0020] pressure is applied to the welding electrodes to force the faying surfaces of first and second metal workpieces together which, incidentally, squeezes most, but not all, of the intervening adhesive outwardly away from the center of the spot weld location) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. 20170349221 in view of Hohn et al. DE 102016218488 (citations are from attached English translation) . Regarding claim 29, Yamada teaches all that is claimed above but is silent regarding a surface of the adhesive layer has an Sa value in a range from approximately 5 to 30 µm. Hohn teaches a similar component connection in Fig. 1 to that of Yamada. Hohn teaches a first component 10 is aluminum, a second component 20 is steel, and an adhesive layer 30 is an iron alloy per [0061]. The adhesive layer 30 is applied via cold spraying per [0058] to a surface of first component 10 per [0062] as shown in Fig. 2. The second component 20 is fastened to adhesive layer 30 by welding per [0059] and [0016] describes welding can be spot welding or resistance welding, i.e., pressure welding. The coating parameters for applying the adhesive layer 30 are adjusted or changed during the coating process in such a way that locally different properties of the activation layer result which allows the activation layer 30 to be locally adapted to the needs or requirements of the welding process; for example, the activation layer may exhibit local differences in thickness, porosity and/or roughness per [0033]. The coating parameters can be adjusted by applying the coating for different lengths of time or with different material flows in local areas to form an activation layer with varying thickness per [0035]. The adjustment of the coating parameters can alternatively or additionally be achieved by coating locally with different impact velocities of the particles of the second material or with different particle diameters, etc., in order to form an activation layer of different density, penetration depth into the first bonding part, porosity, roughness, adhesion, etc. Therefore, surface roughness is a result effective variable which affects weldability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yamada by adjusting the coating process in order to form an activation layer of different density, penetration depth into the first bonding part, porosity, roughness, adhesion, etc. so as to be locally adapted to the needs or requirements of the welding process as taught by Hohn, resulting in the adhesive layer has an Sa value in a range from approximately 5 to 30 µm as claimed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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. /A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 2 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 3 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 4 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 5 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 6 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 7 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 8 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 9 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 10 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 11 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 12 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 13 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 14 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/549,275 Page 15 Art Unit: 3741
Prosecution Insights