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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10-11,15, 19, 22-23, 29, 30, 31, 34-35, 37, 41, and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the newly added limitation “pre-assembled stack” is not supported by the original disclosure and constitutes new matter. It should be noted that simply stacking a plurality of metal layers does not constitute pre-assembly. Furthermore, the limitation “pre-assembled” is broader in scope than adhered metal layers and thus enlarges the scope beyond that of the original disclosure. Likewise, the newly added limitations of a “laminar configuration” and “an integral layer” are also not supported by the original disclosure for the same reasons. If the applicant is in disagreement the examiner respectfully requests that the applicant provide the location of explicit support in the original disclosure along with a detailed explanation.
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, 3, 10-11,15, 19, 22-23, 29, 30, 31, 34-35, 37, 41, and 64-66 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.
In claim 1, line 10 the “optionally” language, which does not positively require a flyer or an auxiliary member contradicts the limitation of “wherein the first metal in the stack is not the flyer and is not the auxiliary member” found in line 13. The contradiction raises the question of whether a flyer and/or auxiliary member is actually required in the claimed process. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
Claims 65-66 are indefinite because the limitation of claim 1, line 13 can be interpreted as requiring a flyer and an auxiliary member; however, claims 65-66 state “when the flyer is present.” Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 65 and 66 contradicts that of claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 15, 19, 22-23, and 64-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashani et al. (US 2019/0262932A1) (hereafter Kashani).
With respect to claim 1, Kashani teaches a method for producing an impulse weld in a pre-assembled stack (plates-stack assembly) comprising a plurality of metal layers (51/55(56)/52) (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 24, 36, 48-52 and 64-133), wherein the plurality of metal layers are arranged in a laminar configuration (broadest reasonable interpretation) prior to imparting the rising pressure (figure 1; and paragraphs 15-16, 70, and 120-125), and wherein the stack is substantially free of an intentional initial gap between one or more metal layers in the stack (figure 1; and paragraph 70, also note that Kashani does not describe setting a gap or space between one or more metal layers in the stack), and wherein the method comprises: imparting rising pressure (high-speed impact) to at least a portion of a first metal layer (first plate 51 or top layer 56a of stack 55 can reasonably be considered a first metal layer) that is an integral layer (broadest reasonable interpretation) of the stack wherein the pressure is effective to project the first metal layer towards the rest of the plurality of metal layers to form a metallurgical bond between the plurality of metal layers (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 12-20, 24, 36, 48-52 and 64-133); wherein the rising pressure is optionally (because of the “optionally” language this limitation is not positively required however upper plate 51 could be considered a flyer in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation if required) imparted by projecting a supplementary member (flyer) or an auxiliary member towards the first metal layer, such that the first metal layer is then projected toward the rest of the plurality of metal layers (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 12-20, 24, 36, 48-52 and 64-133); wherein the first metal (first plate 51 or top layer 56a of stack 55 can reasonably be considered a first metal layer) in the stack is not the flyer and is not the auxiliary member (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 48-52 and 64-133); wherein the stack has a thickness from about 0.5 microns to about 4 mm (paragraphs 2, 72, and 80); or wherein a thickness of a metal layer in the plurality of metal layers is from about 0.5 microns to about 4 mm (paragraphs 2, 72, and 80).
With respect to claim 10, Kashani teaches wherein the plurality of metal layers comprise aluminum, copper, zinc, titanium, iron, nickel, lithium alloys thereof, or alloys, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 27, 74, and 82).
With respect to claim 11, Kashani teaches wherein each of the plurality of metal layers is substantially similar to each other, and/or wherein the each of the plurality of metal layers comprises a substantially similar composition; and/or wherein the each of the plurality of metal layers has a substantially similar geometry; and/or wherein the each of the plurality of metal layers has a substantially similar thickness (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 80-83).
With respect to claim 15, Kashani teaches wherein at least two metal layers in the plurality of metal layers are different; and/or wherein the at least two metal layers in the plurality of metal layers have a substantially different composition; and/or wherein the at least two metal layers in the plurality of metal layers have a substantially different geometry; and/or wherein the at least two metal layers in the plurality of metal layers have a substantially different thickness (figures 3-4; and paragraphs 26, 76, 83, and 107).
With respect to claim 19, Kashani teaches wherein the at least two different metal layers in the plurality of metal layers are adjacent to each other in the stack (paragraph 83) or wherein three or more of metal layers in the plurality of metal layers are different and positioned in alternating order in the stack.
With respect to claim 22, Kashani teaches wherein the pressure is generated by an energy source, and wherein the pressure is generated through plasma, gas expansion by an electrical current, laser, electromagnetic source, detonation of an explosive and/or energetic material, electromagnetic repulsion, projectile of gun powder, spring projectile, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 64-65 and 129).
With respect to claim 23, Kashani teaches accelerating the auxiliary member (51) towards the first metal layer (56a) of the plurality of metal layers (stack 55).
With respect to claim 64, Kashani teaches wherein the stack comprises more than 2 metal layers to 1000 layers (figures 1-4; and paragraphs 78-79).
With respect to claim 65, Kashani teaches wherein when the flyer (51) is present, the energy source first accelerates the flyer toward the first metal layer (56a) in the stack (55), which is then accelerated toward the rest of the plurality of metal layers (figures; and paragraphs 48, 52, 64-69, and 129-132).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 29, 31, 34-35, 37, 41, and 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Daehn et al. (WO2021/127527A1) (hereafter Daehn).
With respect to claim 3, Daehn teaches wherein a maximum value of the pressure is at least 2 times greater than a flow strength of at least one metal layer in the plurality of metal layers (entire document). Since Daehn is performing the claimed impact/impulse welding process with the claimed materials and using the claimed parameters, it is the examiner’s position that the process of Daehn intrinsically uses a maximum value of the pressure is at least 2 times greater than a flow strength of at least one metal layer in the plurality of metal layers. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pressure and/or energy of Daehn in the process of Kashani in order to ensure that the metal sheets are properly bonded together thereby forming a strong weldment.
With respect to claim 29, Daehn teaches wherein the energy source provides energy from about 0.1 kJ to about 10 kJ (paragraphs 83-84).
With respect to claim 31, Daehn teaches wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary member comprises an ablative material configured to vaporize during the accelerating step, and/or wherein at least a portion of the auxiliary member comprises at least one chemical compound configured to react exothermically (paragraphs 110 and 150).
With respect to claim 34, Daehn teaches wherein the compound comprises sodium azide, nitromethane, pentaerythritol tetranitrate comprising material, one or more oxidants or oxidizing materials, gunpowder, nitroglycerine, or any combination thereof (paragraphs 82 and 189).
With respect to claim 35, Daehn teaches wherein the ablative material is configured to evaporate and to impart kinetic energy as measured from 0.5 J/cm.sup.2 to 5 kJ/cm.sup.2 to the first metal layer of the plurality of metal layers (paragraphs 153 and 159).
With respect to claim 37, Daehn teaches wherein the auxiliary member comprises: a transparent material configured to transmit energy from the energy source to the ablating material, wherein the transparent material comprises water, a glass, or a transparent polymer; and/or wherein the auxiliary member comprises a high shock impedance material, wherein high shock impedance material comprises glycerin, water, or a combination thereof (paragraphs 136-137).
With respect to claim 41, Daehn teaches wherein the auxiliary multi-layer member is formed in-situ by providing a first stream of glycerin, water, or a combination thereof and a second layer or stream of sodium azide, nitromethane-comprising material, one or more oxidants or oxidizing materials, or any combination thereof (paragraph 139).
With respect to claim 65, Daehn teaches wherein when the flyer is present (optional language in conjunction with claim 1), the energy source first accelerates the flyer toward the first metal layer (interlayer or auxiliary member or outermost layer of the stack) in the stack, which is then accelerated toward the rest of the plurality of metal layers (target) (figures 32-33; and paragraphs 244-245).
With respect to claim 66, Daehn teaches wherein when the flyer is present (optional language in conjunction with claim 1), the auxillary member (foil actuator) accelerates the flyer toward the first metal layer in the stack, which is then accelerated toward the rest of the plurality of metal layers (target) (figures 33-35; and paragraphs 197 and 245-247).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Kashani does not teach or suggest imparting rising pressure to a first integral stack layer. Instead, Kashani applies pressure to an external plate and uses that pressure to compress the internal sheets while welding the plates. Accordingly, when claim 1 is interpreted in light of the specification, Kashani's plate-driven arrangement cannot reasonably be mapped onto a method that treats the pre-assembled laminar stack as the workpiece and applies rising pressure directly to an integral stack layer, distinct from any plate, flyer, or auxiliary. Under MPEP §2131, anticipation requires that the prior art disclose each and every element of the claim arranged as recited. Kashani does not disclose a pre-assembled laminar workpiece stack that itself is the object of the impulse weld and is substantially free of intentional initial gaps, nor does it disclose imparting rising pressure to a first metal layer that is an integral layer of that workpiece stack and distinct from any flyer or auxiliary member. Accordingly, Kashani does not anticipate amended claim 1. Further, even if the Office were to attempt to recast the Kashani rejection under §103, the deficiency remains. Neither Kashani nor Daehn suggests modifying the plate-driven welding process of Kashani into a method in which a pre-assembled laminar workpiece stack is the primary welded body and rising pressure is applied directly to a first integral stack layer, expressly not a flyer or auxiliary member, to project that layer into the rest of the stack. There is no articulated motivation in the cited references to make such a modification, nor evidence that a person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect success in doing so, as required under MPEP §§2141 and 2143.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kashani explicitly teaches welding the plates-stack assembly which includes layers 51/55(56)/52 (paragraphs 69 and 130), i.e., the layers of the stack 55 are welded together and to plates 51 and 52. The examiner’s position is reinforced by paragraphs [0024], [0036], [0064], [0069], and [0130] of Kashani wherein it is stated that:
[0024] Such a method allows to weld the two plates to each other in the at least one through-hole, which allows to maintain the sheets in place and advantageously limit the later delamination of the sheets. (emphasis added by the examiner).
[0036] The item obtained is advantageous in that it allows, via welding of the two plates to each other at the hole, the sheets to remain in position between the plates without risk of later delamination. (emphasis added by the examiner).
[0064] For the desired use, namely the welding of a stack 55 of sheets, it is necessary to concentrate the magnetic field in a very fine skin depth, for example of approximately 0.3 mm for a plate made of copper. In order to concentrate the magnetic field in such a skin depth, the frequency generated is at least greater than 25 kHz. (emphasis added by the examiner).
[0069] The stack 55 and the two plates 51, 52 are intended to be disposed on top of each other, in such a way as to form a shared zone of superposition, called zone of overlapping 53, and to then be welded at all or a portion of said zone of overlapping by the coil 11. (emphasis added by the examiner).
[0130] a pressure is exerted on the outer face 512 of the first plate 51 and presses it closely against the first sheet 56.sub.a, which is in turn pressed closely against the second sheet and so on until the last sheet 56.sub.c is pressed closely against the inner face 521 of the second plate 52, causing their bonding in a permanent manner. (emphasis added by the examiner).
Accordingly, Kashani explicitly teaches that the sheets of stack 55 are welded/laminated together, and the plates 51 and 52 are welded to the stack 55.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735