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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Replogle (2,683,923) in view of Takenouchi (2015/0261211).
Replogle discloses the method substantially as claimed including the step of: providing first and second generally planar metallic portions 1-2 each having generally parallel first and second sides opposite each other, and each having an end edge extending between the first and second sides, where the first and second ends are proximate one another (see Fig. 1); resistance welding the end edges together to form a weld joint/crack 3 and produce weld flash on at least one of the first and second sides of the portions (see Fig. 1-2); grinding the weld flash on at least one of the first and second sides (see col. 11, lines 56-61); normalizing the weld joint (see col. 10, lin. 10-15), after welding, annealing the welded first and second portions (see col. 10, lin. 10-15); a carbon alloy steel (see Tables I-IV). Replogle doesn’t show applying a fluid to the weld joint during the grinding of the weld flash, where the compressed gas is one of atmospheric air, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide; and a consistent flow rate. However, Takenouchi teaches the use of applying a fluid 50 to the weld joint during the grinding of the weld flash, where the compressed gas is one of atmospheric air, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide (see para. 0032-0033); a consistent flow rate (see Fig. 2) for the purpose of improving the welding by reducing the amount of deformation due to heart from grinding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Replogle by providing the above limitation as taught by Takenouchi in order to obtain a device that reduces the amount of deformation due to heart from grinding.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Replogle (2,683,923) in view of Takenouchi (2015/0261211).
The modified device of Replogle discloses the method substantially as claimed except for the fluid is a lubricant/coolant applied according to Minimum Quantity Lubrication. However, The Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of Minimum Quantity Lubrication is/are old and well known in the art for the purpose of applying lubricant in the least amount for the operation reducing production and recovery cost. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Replogle by providing the above limitation in order to obtain a device that apply lubricant in the least amount for the operation reducing production and recovery cost.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Replogle (2,683,923) in view of Takenouchi (2015/0261211).
The modified device of Replogle discloses the claimed method except for a semi-synthetic water-soluble coolant mixed with water. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the device of Replogle by providing cooling the welding, since the Examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of a semi-synthetic water-soluble coolant mixed with water and gas for their use in the grinding/cutting art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to cooling the welding would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday8:00-4:00 pm.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/OMAR FLORES SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights