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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Park et al. (2007/0181649A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for reinforcing structural members, comprising: forming a structure of a first metal 33, 34, the structure including at least one groove 38, 39 along a surface (top surface, where friction stir welding pin is located) of the structure; placing a rod 40 of a second metal in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure such that an entirety of the rod lies within the groove below the surface of the structure (top surface) when placed into the least one groove; and fusing the rod to the structure without melting the first metal, wherein the rod remains intact and embedded in the structure as a reinforcing element after being fused to the structure (figures 7-8, paragraphs 0010-0017, 0060-0062). Park discloses a groove along a surface of the structure. Along is defined as “in a line matching the length or direction of; therefore; the groove is along the surface of the structure even if it is not in the surface of the structure (figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 2, the materials of Park do not form naturally, there would have to be some sort of machining to form the sheets with a cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses that the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is steel (paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses that the fusing comprises friction stir welding (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses that the structure is a plate, chamber, lid, or tube (figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses a method for reinforcing structural members, comprising: forming a structure of a first metal 34, the structure including at least one groove 39 along a surface of the structure; placing a rod 40 of a second metal in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure such that an entirety of the rod lies with the groove below the surface of the structure; and embedding the rod in the structure using friction stir welding wherein the rod remains intact and embedded in the structure as a reinforcing element after the friction stir welding (abstract, figures 7-8, paragraphs 0010-0017, 0060-0062). Park discloses a groove along a surface of the structure. Along is defined as “in a line matching the length or direction of; therefore; the groove is along the surface of the structure even if it is not in the surface of the structure (figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses that the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is steel (paragraph 0062).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10, 14-15, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hori et al. (JP2004314115A).
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a method for reinforcing structural members, comprising: forming a structure of a first metal 2, the structure including at least one groove 6, 8 along a surface (top surface, where friction stir welding pin is located) of the structure; placing a rod 16 of a second metal in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure such that an entirety of the rod lies within the groove below the surface of the structure (top surface) when placed into the least one groove; and fusing the rod to the structure without melting the first metal, wherein the rod remains intact and embedded in the structure as a reinforcing element after being fused to the structure (abstract, figures 1-3, paragraphs 0008-0020).
Regarding claim 2, the materials of Hori do not form naturally, there would have to be some sort of machining to form the sheets with a cavity.
Regarding claim 3, Hori discloses that the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is steel (paragraph 0008-0020).
Regarding claim 6, Hori discloses that the fusing comprises friction stir welding (abstract, paragraphs 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 7, Hori discloses that the structure is a plate, chamber, lid, or tube (figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hori discloses a method for reinforcing structural members, comprising: forming a structure of a first metal 2, the structure including at least one groove 6, 8 along a surface of the structure; placing a rod 16 of a second metal in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure such that an entirety of the rod lies with the groove below the surface of the structure (figures 1-3); and embedding the rod in the structure using friction stir welding wherein the rod remains intact and embedded in the structure as a reinforcing element after the friction stir welding (abstract, figures 1-3, paragraphs 0008-0020).
Regarding claim 10, Hori discloses providing a cap 10 of the first metal over the rod of the second metal before the embedding (figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Hori discloses a method for reinforcing structural members, comprising: forming a structure of a first metal 2, the structure including at least one groove 8 along a surface of the structure; placing a rod 16 of a second metal in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure such that an entirety of the rod lies with the groove below the surface of the structure (figures 1-3); providing a cap 10 of the first metal over the rod in the at least one groove along the surface of the structure; and embedding the rod in the structure by solid-state welding the structure, rod and cap together, wherein the rod remains intact and embedded in the structure as a reinforcing element after the solid-state welding (abstract, figures 1-3, paragraphs 0008-0020).
Regarding claim 15, Hori discloses that the first metal is aluminum and the second metal is steel (0008-0020).
Regarding claim 19, Hori states that the pipe (rod) is not limited in shape and for example can a hexagonal or octagonal shape (paragraph 0047-0050). This indicates that Hori is open to other shapes. Furthermore, the points of an octagon or hexagon could be considered a “raised feature”. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 20, Hori discloses that the solid-state welding is friction stir welding (abstract, paragraphs 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 21, Hori discloses that the cap 10 includes an elongated bar of the first metal dimensioned to at least partially fill a remaining volume of the groove (groove part 6) over the rod 16, such that an exterior surface of the cap forms at least a portion of the face of the structure after the embedding (figures 1-3).
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) 4, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2007/0181649A1) in view of Park et al. (7,766,214) as applied to claims 1, 8 above, and further in view of Barnes (2007/0215675A1) and Amusin et al. (2006/0166024A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, Park does not specifically disclose that the structure is an I-beam and the surface of the structure is a surface of a flange of the I-beam. However, Barnes discloses that it is known to friction stir welding I-beams together to attach the flange (abstract). Also, Amusin discloses that it is known to have reinforcing elements 2 in the flange of I-beams (figures 1-2). Therefore, since it is known to friction stir weld I-beams and it is also known to reinforce I-beams, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to friction stir weld rods in the flange of I-beams in order to prevent weaknesses at the weld joint and to improve the fatigue strength.
Regarding claims 12, Amusin discloses forming the I-beam includes extruding the I-beam having the at least one groove one or more grooves along the surface of the I-beam (paragraphs 0015, 0030).
Claims 5, 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (2007/0181649A1) as applied to claims 1, 8 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (4,005,255).
Regarding claims 5, 13, Park discloses that the rod can have different shapes (paragraph 0040), but does not specifically disclose that the rod includes one or more raised features along a surface of the rod. However, Wagner discloses using rods of different shapes (figures 6-8). Wagner shows rods with raised features (figures 6-7). Both Park and Wagner show that it is well-known to use rods of different shapes. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a rod with a shape suitable for creating the strength required in the final product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested the limitations of claim 14 that also included wherein the structure is an I-beam and the surface of the structure is a surface of a flange of the I-beam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Park does not disclose that an entirety of the rod lies within the groove below the surface of the structure when placed into the at least one groove.
The Examiner disagrees. The surface is taken to be the top surface (see rejection above). The groove is within the structure, but not in the surface. It is; however; considered to be along the surface. As stated in the rejection above, Along is defined as “in a line matching the length or direction of; therefore; the groove is along the surface of the structure even if it is not in the surface of the structure (figures 7-8).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735