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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 02/14/2024, claims 9-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 4, “a steel first substrate” should be “a first steel substrate”.
Claim 9, last line, “ms,” should be “ms.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the term(s) “a steel first substrate and a second substrate” in line 4. It is unclear if the term(s) “steel first substrate and a second substrate” correspond to the claimed “at least two substrates” previously recited in lines 1-2. In light of the specification, Figure 1 shows two press-hardened steel parts 3, 3' are spot welded together. Thus, for examination purposes, the term(s) “steel first substrate and a second substrate” are construed as the claimed at least two substrates”.
Claim 9, the term “each addition element” is recited in line 8. It is unclear if “each addition element” refers to each of the claimed “additional elements” previously recited in line 7 or something else. For examination purposes, the term “each addition element” is construed as “each of the additional elements”.
Claim 9, the term “each” is recited in line 13. It is unclear if the term “each” refers to each of the claimed “at least three pulsations” or something else. For examination purposes, the term “each” is construed as “each of the at least three pulsations”.
Claim 15, the term “the second metallic substrate” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if “the second metallic substrate” refers to the claimed “second substrate” previously recited in claim 9. If so, the term “the second metallic substrate” should be “the second substrate”.
Claim 17 recites the same term “the second metallic substrate” so it is rejected by the same reason(s) as discussed in claim 15 above.
Claims 10-14 and 16 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (US 20160228973A1) in view of Koll (US20190040513A1)
Regarding claim 9, Fujimoto discloses
A welding method (see title) for manufacturing an assembly of at least two substrates (plurality of steel sheets, see abstract) spot welded together through at least one spot welded joint (See abstract), the method comprising the following steps:
A. providing a steel first substrate (hot stamped steel sheet, see para.0033) and a second substrate (another hot stamped steel sheet, see para.0033).the first steel substrate being a press hardened steel part (hot stamped steel sheet, see para.0033) obtained by press hardening of a steel sheet coated with a coating (see claim 8: “a surface of said high tensile steel sheet is covered by a zinc-based coating film or an aluminum-based coating film”),
B. applying a spot-welding cycle (see first pulsation step in fig.8e) with a spot-welding machine (combo electrodes and welding power supply, see para.0025,0033), comprising welding electrodes (electrodes, see para.0025) and a spot-welding power source (inverter DC power supply, see para.0033) applying a current (see fig.8e and abstract), through the first and second substrates (plurality of steel sheets, see abstract), the spot welding cycle (see first pulsation step in fig.8e) including:
at least three pulsations (See fig.8e), each having a same maximum pulsation current (see first pulsation step in fig.8e having the same maximum pulsation current) applied through the first and second substrates (plurality of steel sheets, see para.0077) joined together using welding electrodes (electrodes, see para.0025) connected to the spot- welding power source (inverter DC power supply, see para.0033), each pulsation duration p ( the conduction time, see fig.8e and para.0078) being identical (See fig.8e) a
Fujimoto does not expressly disclose the coating containing by weight, before press hardening, from 7 to 12 wt.% of silicon, from 2 to 5 wt.% of iron, optionally additional elements chosen from Sr, Sb, Pb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Zr or Bi, a content by weight of each additional element being inferior to 0.3 wt.% and optionally residuals elements, a balance being aluminum,
each pulsation duration p set from 20 to 60 ms, each pulsation being followed by a same cooling time c set from 30 to 50 ms, wherein a welding parameter Wp value is at least 0.8, Wp being defined as Wp = (t x c)/p t being the average thickness of the substrate in mm, c being the cooling time in ms, and p being the pulsation duration in ms.
However, Fujimoto discloses each pulsation duration p set from 20 to 60 ms (See para.0080: “The conduction time per pulse in the first pulsation step is preferably 5 to 60 msec”, which overlaps with the claimed range), each pulsation being followed by a same cooling time c (idle time, see fig.8c) set from 30 to 50 ms (See para.0082:” The conduction idle time in the first pulsation step (below, also referred to as the “idle time”) is preferably 5 to 60 msec”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP2144.05). Therefore, it would have been an obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fujimoto’s invention to have “each pulsation duration p set from 20 to 60 ms, each pulsation being followed by a same cooling time c set from 30 to 50 ms”, for the purpose of controlling how much heat is delivered to the workpieces and how quickly the weld zone cools.
The modification of Fujimoto discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but silent on
wherein a welding parameter Wp value is at least 0.8, Wp being defined as Wp = (t x c)/p
t being the average thickness of the substrate in mm,
c being the cooling time in ms, and
p being the pulsation duration in ms.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.8e), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, the modification of Fujimoto discloses the cooling time c and pulsation duration p overlap with the claimed ranges and Fujimoto also discloses a certain average thickness of the substrate in mm and having a specific average thickness of the substrate in mm is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the average thickness of the substrate is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the average thickness of the substrate such that that Wp being defined as Wp = (t x c)/p=0.8, in order to study how thickness influences the process or device performance to maintain consistent process conditions, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
The modification of Fujimoto discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but also silent on the coating containing by weight, before press hardening, from 7 to 12 wt.% of silicon, from 2 to 5 wt.% of iron, optionally additional elements chosen from Sr, Sb, Pb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Zr or Bi, a content by weight of each additional element being inferior to 0.3 wt.% and optionally residuals elements, a balance being aluminum,
Koll discloses an aluminium - based coating for steel sheets or steel strips and method for the production thereof, comprising:
the coating containing by weight, before press hardening, from 7 to 12 wt.% of silicon (see abstract: “Si content of between 8 and 12 wt. %”), from 2 to 5 wt.% of iron (See abstract: “an Fe content of between 1 and 4 wt. %”), a balance being aluminum (See abstract: “ the remainder being aluminium”).
Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the coating of the steel sheet of Fujimoto to contain “by weight, before press hardening, from 7 to 12 wt.% of silicon, from 2 to 5 wt.% of iron, optionally additional elements chosen from Sr, Sb, Pb, Ti, Ca, Mn, Sn, La, Ce, Cr, Zr or Bi, a content by weight of each additional element being inferior to 0.3 wt.% and optionally residuals elements, a balance being aluminum” as taught by Koll. Doing so improves phase stability, control hardenability, and ensure consistent high-strength performance during press hardening
Regarding claim 10, Fujimoto further discloses the maximum pulsation current is set from 0.1 to 30kA (See para.0040: “a weld current at the first pulsation step is 5.0 to 14.0 kA”).
Regarding claim 11, Fujimoto further discloses a number of the at least three pulsations (first pulsation step, see fig.8e) is set from three to nine (three, see fig.8e).
Regarding claim 12, Fujimoto further discloses a welding force is set from 50 to 650 daN (See para.0072: “The pressing force is preferably 200 to 600 kgf.”, wherein 200 to 600 kgf = 196.133 -588.399 daN).
Regarding claim 14, Fujimoto further discloses the pulsations have a setpoint shape selected among: - a rectangular form, - a parabolic form, - a triangular form (rectangular form, see fig.8e).
Regarding claim 15, Fujimoto further discloses
the second metallic substrate is a steel substrate (another hot stamped steel sheet, see para.0033).
Regarding claim 16, Fujimoto further discloses
The welding method as recited in claim 15 wherein the second steel substrate is a press hardened steel part (another hot stamped steel sheet, see para.0033).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Koll as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Jury (US 20140231532 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a welding frequency is set from 500 to 5000Hz.
Jury discloses a flash butt welding process, comprising:
a welding frequency is set from 500 to 5000Hz. (See para.0042: “a preferred frequency of vibration may be substantially between about 50 to 800 Hz”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the welding frequency of Fujimoto in view of Koll to be set from 500 to 5000Hz as taught by Jury. Doing so provides the stability, precision, and heat control needed to join these ultra-high-strength, brittle materials without defects.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto in view of Koll as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Zhang US 20190329348 A1
Regarding claim 17, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the second metallic substrate is an aluminum substrate.
Zhang discloses welding methods for joining light metal and high-strength steel using solid state and resistance spot welding processes, comprising:
the second metallic substrate is an aluminum substrate (See para.003: “to join aluminum alloy to coated hot stamped boron steel in press hardened state”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the second metallic substrate of second metallic substrate by the one as taught by Zhang since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of providing the welding material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20150174690A1 discloses a spot welding method of high-strength steel sheets excellent in joint strength, for forming a weld by spot welding in, for example, processes of manufacturing automobile parts, assembling a vehicle body, and so on.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights