DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “configured to”, the term “configured to” is considered an “adapted to” type limitation, wherein it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138.
Therefore, it is suggested that the combination of functional and structural language be used where possible to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, it is unclear how a “transition region” can comprise a “tapering of the groove” but also be located between the “groove region (which contains the groove) and the base region”. The Examiner will consider the transition region any region that comprises tapering of a groove surface at the boundary between a groove surface and a groove-containing surface that is not grooved.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear what “a catchment for receiving the weld leg” structurally encompasses or how a groove can further contain a depression on an outer portion without additional structural and/or functional limitations. The limitation will be interpreted as any outer region of the groove as comprising a region that can receive the weld leg in any form.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what a “sacrificial region” of the weld leg is.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear if the “profile…” is separate/distinct from the depression and hump or if they are part of the profile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 6, & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Schrack (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0089159 A1) (hereinafter “Schrack”) or, in the alternative, claims 1, 6-7, & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrack, optionally (further) in view of Li et al. (CN 110274372 A) (hereinafter “Li”);
wherein claims 6-7 are optionally further in view of Sugimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0136856 A1) (hereinafter “Sugimura”) AND/OR, wherein claims 8-10 & 16-20 are optionally even further (OR alternatively) in view of Watabe et al. (JP 2000-135740 A) (hereinafter “Watabe”) OR Aoki et al. (JP 51-053577 A) (hereinafter “Aoki”);
wherein claims 7 & 15 are optionally further in view of Sonic Power (Part Design for Ultrasonic Welding) (hereinafter “Sonic 1”).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11-14, Schrack teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding system comprising a first assembly (All Figs. [30]) and a second assembly (All Figs. [20]) by ultrasonic waves injected via sonotrode [0004-0009, 0011, 0014, 0018-0019, 0021-0022, 0025, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058] the first assembly comprising a raised base surface having a groove region (Figs. 2, 3C, 4C [34]), wherein the groove transitions from an area not having a groove that is tapered in both a plan view cross-section (elliptical ends) and also seems to have a graduated/tapered thickness extending from each end in a longitudinal cross-section (Fig. 2 [34]), wherein a groove shape in a lateral thickness cross-section is also tapered extending from the top surface opening such that it would nudge a complementary welding rib (Figs. 2 & 3C [24]) toward a mid-line/center(line) of the groove (and raised joining/base surface) with minimal movement parallel to the base surface for high positioning accuracy and high strength [0014, 0018-0019, 0021, 0022, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058, Fig. 3C], wherein the depression would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
In the event that the transition region is not taught as recited above:
Li teaches a weld seal comprising a first component having a groove (All Figs. [21]) and a second component having a protruding rib (All Figs. [11]), wherein the groove comprises a gradually rounded/tapered transition from the base surface into the groove as it facilitates alignment, avoids friction between the first and second components during installation/insertion and preventing damage to the weld structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a gradual transition from the base surface into the groove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide alignment facilitation, avoidance of friction during installation/insertion, and preventing damage to the weld structure [0052].
Further regarding claims 6-7 and regarding claims 8-10 and 16-20, in the event that the depression (and hump) is not taught as recited above:
Sugimura teaches an outer portion of the sidewall leading from the bottom welding/melting region to the base surface may comprise at least one notch, that may be adjacent the joining/base surface, wherein the notches would inherently form a hump in the sidewall surface between the at least one notch and the bottom welding/melting region such that any resin fragments from the rib or groove are prevented from overtopping the sidewall (catchment) during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Figs. 1A-5, 0023-0026, 0060, 0065, 0070].
AND/OR
Watabe teaches a continuous or discontinuous longitudinal welding groove comprising two parts a wide portion (All Figs. [2A]) and a narrower guide portion (All Figs. [2B]) but of which may be tapered/inclined that prevents horizontal/lateral misalignment [0017], wherein the guide portion directs a tapered portion of the rib (All Figs. [3B]) via a corner edge (hump) (All Figs. [4]) that allows for position (deflection/deformation) [0017, 0027], such that a gap below the rib is completely filled with melted/flash material and at least part of the depression formed by corner edge and the wide portion of the groove [0024-0025].
OR
Aoki teaches a modification on the conventional ultrasonic welding, wherein a groove sidewall can comprise a hump that provides a snap-fitting engagement (Fig. 3) that allows for a gap for the flash/melt formed upon vibration/ultrasonic welding while reducing misalignment of the joint, which eliminates the need for a vertical positioning tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide notches in the sidewall flanking the bottom welding/melting region in an outer portion of the groove (that forms a hump thereon) and/or forming a hump that inherently (or obviously in addition to) forms a depression. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to prevent any resin fragments from the rib or groove from overtopping the sidewall during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Sugimura] AND/OR prevent horizontal/lateral misalignment [Watabe] OR to allow for a gap for the flash/melt formed upon vibration/ultrasonic welding while reducing misalignment of the joint, which eliminates the need for a vertical positioning tool [Aoki].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform any differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Alternatively, Sonic teaches a tongue and groove joint design, wherein the depth of the groove about W/3 (or in the case of Schrack even deeper to provide a melt/flash recess), wherein the width must be greater than about 3.2 mm (pg. 3), meaning the groove depth would be at least about 1.07 mm.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to find exemplary/approximate ranges regarding similar/same welding arrangements.
Claims 1-7 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awazu (JP 58-074315 A) (hereinafter “Awazu”), in view of Schrack (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0089159 A1) (hereinafter “Schrack”) AND/OR Li et al. (CN 110274372 A) (hereinafter “Li”);
wherein claims 6-7 as evidenced by or further in view of Yan et al. (The Effects of Energy Director Shape on Temperature Field During Ultrasonic Welding of Thermoplastic Composites) (hereinafter “Yan”);
wherein claims 7 & 15 are optionally further in view of Sonic Power (Part Design for Ultrasonic Welding) (hereinafter “Sonic 1”) OR Yamanobe et al. (JP 2000-048785 A) (hereinafter “Yamanobe”).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 11-14, Awazu teaches one of many conventional vibrational/ultrasonic welding rib/groove joints including one where both the groove and energy direction are trapezoidal the symmetrical groove having a width wider than the rib such that a slight gap is maintained and wider than a depth that is greatest at the mid-line (Fig. 3), which would inherently nudge the rib toward the center of the groove.
However, a gradually tapering transition region between the groove and the base/surface not containing the groove is not taught.
Schrack teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding system comprising a first assembly (All Figs. [30]) and a second assembly (All Figs. [20]) by ultrasonic waves injected via sonotrode [0004-0009, 0011, 0014, 0018-0019, 0021-0022, 0025, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058] the first assembly comprising a raised base surface having a groove region (Figs. 2, 3C, 4C [34]), wherein the groove transitions from an area not having a groove that is tapered in both a plan view cross-section (elliptical ends) and also seems to have a graduated/tapered thickness extending from each end in a longitudinal cross-section (Fig. 2 [34]), wherein a groove shape in a lateral thickness cross-section is also tapered extending from the top surface opening such that it would nudge a complementary welding rib (Figs. 2 & 3C [24]) toward a mid-line/center(line) of the groove (and raised joining/base surface) with minimal movement parallel to the base surface for high positioning accuracy and high strength [0014, 0018-0019, 0021, 0022, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058, Fig. 3C], wherein the depression would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
Alternatively or furthermore, Li teaches a weld seal comprising a first component having a groove (All Figs. [21]) and a second component having a protruding rib (All Figs. [11]), wherein the groove comprises a gradually rounded/tapered transition from the base surface into the groove as it facilitates alignment, avoids friction between the first and second components during installation/insertion and preventing damage to the weld structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a gradual transition from the base surface into the groove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a rib and groove such that movement parallel to the base surface is minimum for high positioning accuracy and high strength weld [Schrack] AND/OR to provide alignment facilitation, avoidance of friction during installation/insertion, and preventing damage to the weld structure [Li].
Regarding claims 6-7, Awazu further teaches subgrooves/depressions formed on at least one or both flanking sides of an energy director, wherein Yan evidences/teaches that a trapezoidal energy director will have the most heat/melt at the lateral side corners/edges (pg. 2009, Fig. 5), wherein it would have been obvious to form melt/flash grooves on the tapered sidewalls, and optionally the center of the between the lateral side edges in the rib/protrusion or in the groove/joining surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a depression as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to additional form subgrooves/depressions to further contain the flash/melt, having an improved bond strength over a gap surface not having the sub-grooves/depressions.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform any differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Alternatively, Sonic teaches a tongue and groove joint design, wherein the depth of the groove about W/3 (or in the case of Schrack even deeper to provide a melt/flash recess), wherein the width must be greater than about 3.2 mm (pg. 3), meaning the groove depth would be at least about 1.07 mm.
OR
Yamanobe teaches a width of a rib having a ratio of 1:2 to 1:1 to the wall thickness of approximately 0.8 to 2 mm for a width and a height of approximately 0.3 to 1 mm [0013], wherein the receiving groove is approximately the same or slightly greater and the depth is equal to or slightly shallower than the height of the welding rib [0014].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to find exemplary/approximate ranges regarding similar/same welding arrangements.
Claims 1-6 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Herrmann Ultrasonics (Ultrasonic welding of plastics) (hereinafter “Herrmann”) as evidenced by Velazquez (Best Practices for Ultrasonic Welding Joint Design…) (hereinafter “Velazquez”) or, in the alternative, claims 1-7 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann, in view of Schrack (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0089159 A1) (hereinafter “Schrack”) AND/OR Li et al. (CN 110274372 A) (hereinafter “Li”);
wherein claims 6-7 are optionally further in view of Sugimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0136856 A1) (hereinafter “Sugimura”) and wherein claims 8-10 & 16-20 are further in view of Sugimura;
wherein claims 7 & 15 are optionally further in view of Sonic Power (Part Design for Ultrasonic Welding) (hereinafter “Sonic 1”) OR Yamanobe et al. (JP 2000-048785 A) (hereinafter “Yamanobe”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 11-14, Hermann teaches a double V joint for a vibration/ultrasonic welding system comprising a gradually tapering V-shaped groove having a width larger than the depth that is self-centering and fully containing of the melt/flash that is formed upon the insertion and welding of a second component having a protruding rib, wherein the depression would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
However, in the event that a gradually tapering transition region between the groove and the base/surface not containing the groove is not taught:
Schrack teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding system comprising a first assembly (All Figs. [30]) and a second assembly (All Figs. [20]) by ultrasonic waves injected via sonotrode [0004-0009, 0011, 0014, 0018-0019, 0021-0022, 0025, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058] the first assembly comprising a raised base surface having a groove region (Figs. 2, 3C, 4C [34]), wherein the groove transitions from an area not having a groove that is tapered in both a plan view cross-section (elliptical ends) and also seems to have a graduated/tapered thickness extending from each end in a longitudinal cross-section (Fig. 2 [34]), wherein a groove shape in a lateral thickness cross-section is also tapered extending from the top surface opening such that it would nudge a complementary welding rib (Figs. 2 & 3C [24]) toward a mid-line/center(line) of the groove (and raised joining/base surface) with minimal movement parallel to the base surface for high positioning accuracy and high strength [0014, 0018-0019, 0021, 0022, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058, Fig. 3C], wherein the depression would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
Alternatively or furthermore, Li teaches a weld seal comprising a first component having a groove (All Figs. [21]) and a second component having a protruding rib (All Figs. [11]), wherein the groove comprises a gradually rounded/tapered transition from the base surface into the groove as it facilitates alignment, avoids friction between the first and second components during installation/insertion and preventing damage to the weld structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a gradual transition from the base surface into the groove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a rib and groove such that movement parallel to the base surface is minimum for high positioning accuracy and high strength weld [Schrack] AND/OR to provide alignment facilitation, avoidance of friction during installation/insertion, and preventing damage to the weld structure [Li].
PNG
media_image1.png
482
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claims 6-7, Further regarding claims 6-7 and regarding claims 8-10 and 16-20, in the event that the depression (and hump) is not taught as recited above:
Sugimura teaches an outer portion of the sidewall leading from the bottom welding/melting region to the base surface may comprise at least one notch, that may be adjacent the joining/base surface, wherein the notches would inherently form a hump in the sidewall surface between the at least one notch and the bottom welding/melting region such that any resin fragments from the rib or groove are prevented from overtopping the sidewall (catchment) during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Figs. 1A-5, 0023-0026, 0060, 0065, 0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide notches in the sidewall flanking the bottom welding/melting region in an outer portion of the groove (that forms a hump thereon). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to prevent any resin fragments from the rib or groove from overtopping the sidewall during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Sugimura].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform any differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Alternatively, Sonic teaches a tongue and groove joint design, wherein the depth of the groove about W/3 (or in the case of Schrack even deeper to provide a melt/flash recess), wherein the width must be greater than about 3.2 mm (pg. 3), meaning the groove depth would be at least about 1.07 mm.
OR
Yamanobe teaches a width of a rib having a ratio of 1:2 to 1:1 to the wall thickness of approximately 0.8 to 2 mm for a width and a height of approximately 0.3 to 1 mm [0013], wherein the receiving groove is approximately the same or slightly greater and the depth is equal to or slightly shallower than the height of the welding rib [0014].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to find exemplary/approximate ranges regarding similar/same welding arrangements.
Claims 1-6 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated Sergent et al. (DE 202013007706 U1) (hereinafter “Sergent”) or, in the alternative, claims 1-7 & 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Schrack (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0089159 A1) (hereinafter “Schrack”) OR Li et al. (CN 110274372 A) (hereinafter “Li”);
wherein claims 6-7 are optionally further in view of Sugimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0136856 A1) (hereinafter “Sugimura”) OR David et al. (FR 2713540 A1) (hereinafter “David”) OR Aoki et al. (JP 51-053577 A) (hereinafter “Aoki”), and wherein claims 8-10 & 16-20 are further in view of Sugimura OR David OR Aoki;
wherein claims 7 & 15 are optionally further in view of Sonic Power (Part Design for Ultrasonic Welding) (hereinafter “Sonic 1”) OR Yamanobe et al. (JP 2000-048785 A) (hereinafter “Yamanobe”).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 11-14, Sergent teaches a vibrational/ultrasonic welding arrangement comprising a first component having a V-shaped groove (Figs. 3-4) or semi-cylindrical/spherical groove (Fig. 5) or rounded trapezoidal groove (Fig. 7) that is inherently at least somewhat self-centering, pushing the corresponding rib of the second component toward the center and bottom of the groove, wherein the grooves extend longitudinally along the base region but not continuously [0014, 0035], wherein a transition region between the top surface and a gradually tapered groove is formed, and wherein depression(s) would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
However, in the event that a gradually tapering transition region between the groove and the base/surface not containing the groove is not taught:
Schrack teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding system comprising a first assembly (All Figs. [30]) and a second assembly (All Figs. [20]) by ultrasonic waves injected via sonotrode [0004-0009, 0011, 0014, 0018-0019, 0021-0022, 0025, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058] the first assembly comprising a raised base surface having a groove region (Figs. 2, 3C, 4C [34]), wherein the groove transitions from an area not having a groove that is tapered in both a plan view cross-section (elliptical ends) and also seems to have a graduated/tapered thickness extending from each end in a longitudinal cross-section (Fig. 2 [34]), wherein a groove shape in a lateral thickness cross-section is also tapered extending from the top surface opening such that it would nudge a complementary welding rib (Figs. 2 & 3C [24]) toward a mid-line/center(line) of the groove (and raised joining/base surface) with minimal movement parallel to the base surface for high positioning accuracy and high strength [0014, 0018-0019, 0021, 0022, 0028, 0048-0049, 0058, Fig. 3C], wherein the depression would be formed adjacent the base surface between the tapered sidewall and the rib (to inherently receive the melt/flash rib/groove material).
Alternatively or furthermore, Li teaches a weld seal comprising a first component having a groove (All Figs. [21]) and a second component having a protruding rib (All Figs. [11]), wherein the groove comprises a gradually rounded/tapered transition from the base surface into the groove as it facilitates alignment, avoids friction between the first and second components during installation/insertion and preventing damage to the weld structure [0052].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a gradual transition from the base surface into the groove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a rib and groove such that movement parallel to the base surface is minimum for high positioning accuracy and high strength weld [Schrack] AND/OR to provide alignment facilitation, avoidance of friction during installation/insertion, and preventing damage to the weld structure [Li].
Further regarding claims 6-7, Sugimura teaches an outer portion of the sidewall leading from the bottom welding/melting region to the base surface may comprise at least one notch, that may be adjacent the joining/base surface, wherein the notches would inherently form a hump in the sidewall surface between the at least one notch and the bottom welding/melting region such that any resin fragments from the rib or groove are prevented from overtopping the sidewall (catchment) during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Figs. 1A-5, 0023-0026, 0060, 0065, 0070].
AND/OR
David teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding joint comprising a portion having a welding protrusion, wherein groove may comprise an additional protrusion comprising depressions formed on both sides (Figs. 4-5), a sub-groove may be added to the mid-line of the bottom forming symmetrical humps and depressions (Figs. 8-9) or the protrusion may be applied to a level (non-grooved/non-protruding) bottom surface mid-line, which is most similar to the semi-circular and flat-bottomed embodiments of Sergent, adding flanking symmetrical humps (Figs. 6-7 [11]) which further define flanking depressions more adjacent to the outer portion of the groove. The symmetrical humps form deflecting portions for the burr/flash/melt that occurs during welding which creates a burr/flash/melt vortex preventing the escape thereof.
OR
Aoki teaches a modification on the conventional ultrasonic welding, wherein a groove sidewall can comprise a hump that provides a snap-fitting engagement (Fig. 3) that allows for a gap for the flash/melt formed upon vibration/ultrasonic welding while reducing misalignment of the joint, which eliminates the need for a vertical positioning tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide notches in the sidewall flanking the bottom welding/melting region in an outer portion of the groove (that forms a hump thereon) and/or forming a hump that inherently (or obviously in addition to) forms a depression. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to prevent any resin fragments from the rib or groove from overtopping the sidewall during vibration/ultrasonic welding and during subsequent use of the product [Sugimura] AND/OR prevent horizontal/lateral misalignment [Watabe] OR to allow for a gap for the flash/melt formed upon vibration/ultrasonic welding while reducing misalignment of the joint, which eliminates the need for a vertical positioning tool [Aoki].
Regarding claims 7 and 15, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform any differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Alternatively, Sonic teaches a tongue and groove joint design, wherein the depth of the groove about W/3 (or in the case of Schrack even deeper to provide a melt/flash recess), wherein the width must be greater than about 3.2 mm (pg. 3), meaning the groove depth would be at least about 1.07 mm.
OR
Yamanobe teaches a width of a rib having a ratio of 1:2 to 1:1 to the wall thickness of approximately 0.8 to 2 mm for a width and a height of approximately 0.3 to 1 mm [0013], wherein the receiving groove is approximately the same or slightly greater and the depth is equal to or slightly shallower than the height of the welding rib [0014].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art to find exemplary/approximate ranges regarding similar/same welding arrangements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Ikoma (JP 2011-016281 A) teaches a vibration/ultrasonic welding structure comprising an asymmetrical groove comprising a depression and hump as set forth in claims 6 and 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 February 6th, 2026