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 .
Priority
The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/JP2022/020573, filed on May 17, 2022, which claims benefit to JP 2021-116765, filed on July 14, 2021 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on January 5, 2024, January 7, 2025 and August 21, 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oikawa et al. (JP 2005-103608).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Oikawa discloses a resistance spot welding method comprising: sandwiching two or more overlapped steel sheet (steel plate 1) between a pair of welding electrodes (2), applying current to the steel sheets (1) while pressing the steel sheets (1) (Par. 3), forming a nugget (3) on overlapping surfaces of the steel sheets (1) to join the steel sheets (1), and after joining, applying vibration (via ultrasonic transmitter 5) directly or indirectly to the nugget (3) so that the steel sheets (1) are cause to vibrate at a frequency of 100 Hz or more (Par. 37, 20 to 60 kHz) and a maximum amplitude of 10 nm to 500 µm (Par. 37, 20 to 40 µm) (Fig. 1 and 3; Par. 3, 28 and 35-37).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Oikawa discloses at least one of the steel sheets (1) has a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more (Table 1; various high strength galvanized sheet, 780Y:783MPa. , 980Y:982MPa).
Regarding claim 5-6 and 13-14, Oikawa et al. discloses wherein at least one of the steel sheets (1) has a coating on at least one of a surface or the overlapping surface thereof; and wherein the coating is a hot-dip galvanized coating or a galvannealed coating (Par. 42 and 52, “Next, these joints were subjected to chemical treatment and electrodeposition coating, and then an SST test (JIS Z2371) was conducted”) (Table 1, various high strength galvanized sheet, 780Y:783MPa. , 980Y:982MPa are subjected to alloying zinc plating were used as test materials).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Oikawa et al. disclose the step of applying of the vibration is performed by causing the steel sheets (1) to be vibrated by a vibration element (ultrasonic transmitter 5) configured to contact at least one of the steel sheets (1) (Fig. 3; Par. 3, 28 and 50).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (JP 2005-103608).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Oikawa et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the step of applying the current to the steel sheets (1) and the start of applying of vibration (Par. 3 and 24-25) except wherein time from the start of the applying of the current to the start of the applying of vibration is 360 minutes or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Oikawa et al., wherein time from the start of the applying of the current to the start of the applying of vibration is 360 minutes or less, sine it is a matter of routine experimentation and/or since it is has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve a desired welding condition (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Oikawa et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the step of applying of vibration (Par. 24-25) except wherein the time of applying of the vibration is 1 second or longer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Oikawa et al., wherein the time of applying of the vibration is 1 second or longer, sine it is a matter of routine experimentation and/or since it is has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve a desired welding condition (MPEP 2144.05 IIa).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (JP 2005-103608) in views of Timms et al. (JP 2020-530401).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Oikawa et al. discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the step of applying of the vibration is performed by causing the steel sheets to vibrate in response to the ultrasonic transmitter (5, Fig. 3) except in response to an external force exerted by an electromagnet onto a steel sheets, the electromagnet having a magnetic pole surface spaced from and facing a surface of at least one of the steel sheet. Timms et al. discloses the step of applying of the vibration is performed by causing the steel sheets (102, 104) to vibrate in response to an external force exerted by an electromagnet (106A, 108B) onto a steel sheets (102, 104), the electromagnet having a magnetic pole surface (106A, 106B) and facing a surface of at least one of the steel sheet (102, 104) (Fig. 1 and 4-6; Par. 21, 29 and 32-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Oikawa et al., the step of applying of the vibration is performed by causing the steel sheets to vibrate in response to an external force exerted by an electromagnet onto a steel sheets, the electromagnet having a magnetic pole surface spaced from and facing a surface of at least one of the steel sheet, as taught by Timms et al., for the purpose of having alternating way to vibrating the teel sheet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571)272-5567. 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights