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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1 and 5 the constants in the formula do not match those in the body of the claim; i.e. A1 ≠ A1. 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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites an additional equation. It is unclear if this equation is to be used with that of claim 1 or in place of that of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted in the rejection below.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitations “E1=3 to 5” and “E2=6 to 8” that are flowed by “in particular 4” and “in particular 7”, respectively, which are narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 14, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gratzel et al. “Advances in friction stir welding by separate control of shoulder and probe” in view of Xu “Properties of High-Speed Friction Stir Welded 6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy”.
Regarding claim 1, Gratzel teaches:
A method for connecting components [two EN AA 5754 H22 specimens] using friction stir welding (FSW) [see figure 2], comprising:
rotating a friction stir welding tool having a pin and a shoulder about an axis of rotation [FSW tool in figures 1 and 3]; and
moving the friction stir welding tool along an advancement direction in order to connect the components [see the weld formed in figure 2],
wherein the shoulder of the friction stir welding tool is moveable relative to the pin [pg. 1933] and a rotational speed of the pin about the axis of rotation corresponds to at least 1.15 times a rotational speed of the shoulder about the axis of rotation [the rotational shoulder speed is held at 2500 rpm while the rotational pin speed varies from 2500, 4000, 6000, and 8000 rpm; figure 7, note at 4000 rpm the ratio of pin speed to shoulder speed is 1.6 times, at 6000 rpm it is 2.4, and at 8000 rpm it is 3.2]
Gratzel does not teach:
wherein an advancement speed is at least 1.0 m/min, and
wherein a ratio of the rotational speed of the pin, nP, to the rotational speed of the shoulder, nS, satisfies the following condition as a function of the advancement speed, v:
A1 x v2 + B1 <nP/nS< A2 x v2 + B2
wherein the constants A1, B1, A2, and B2 have the following values:
A1=0.17 (min/m)2;
A2=0.25 (min/m)2;
B1=1; and
B2=1.8.
Gratzel teaches a travel/advancement speed of 0.2m/min; pg. 1934.
Xu teaches FSW 2mm Al alloy sheets wherein the travel speed is 3 m/min in order to increase the commercial applicability of FSW; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the travel speed of Gratzel up to 3 m/min in order to increase the commercial applicability of FSW. Below is a table showing the combined prior art method wherein the advancement speed is at 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 m/min:
formula of claim 1
ns = 2500
v (m/min)
1
np/ns
1.5
np/ns
np (rpm)
2500
1.17
1
2.05
2500
1.3825
1
2.3625
4000
1.6
4000
1.6
6000
2.4
6000
2.4
8000
3.2
8000
3.2
v
2
np/ns
2.5
np/ns
np
2500
1.68
1
2.8
2500
2.0625
1
3.3625
4000
1.6
4000
1.6
6000
2.4
6000
2.4
8000
3.2
8000
3.2
v
3
np/ns
4
np/ns
np
2500
2.53
1
4.05
2500
3.72
1
5.8
4000
1.6
4000
1.6
6000
2.4
6000
2.4
8000
3.2
8000
3.2
Regarding claim 2, the incorporation of Xu into Gratzel meets this limitation:
wherein the advancement speed is 1.5 m/min to 10 m/min.
Regarding claim 3, Gratzel teaches:
wherein the rotational speed of the pin about the axis of rotation corresponds to 3 times to 8 times the rotational speed of the shoulder about the axis of rotation [as noted above, at 8000 above rpm the ratio of pin speed to shoulder speed is 3.2 times which also meets the condition of claim 1].
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that this claim has a conditional limitation of “… for an advancement speed of …” which if it is not met, then the claim does not need to be met and is not required. Thus, in the case of advancement speeds below 4 m/min as noted in the rejection of claim 1 this claim is not further limiting and met.
In the case it is met:
Gratzel does not teach,
wherein, for an advancement speed of 4 m/min to 10 m/min, a ratio of the rotational speed of the pin, nP, to the rotational speed of the shoulder, nS, satisfies the following condition as a function of the advancement speed, v:
C1 x (v-D)2.15 + E1 <nP/nS< C2 x (v-D)2. 15 + E2
wherein the constants C1, D, E1, C2, and E2 have the following values: C1=0.6 (min/m)2.15; C2=0.6 (min/m)2.15; D=4 m/min; E1=3 to 5, in particular 4; E2=6 to 8, in particular 7.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the travel speed to a little over 4 m/min in order to make the FSW process more economically viable. In doing so, at 8000 rpm, the process of the prior art satisfies this conditional limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Gratzel teaches:
wherein at least one of the components, preferably both components, is composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy [two EN AA 5754 H22 specimens], in particular of an aluminum alloy with a silicon proportion of more than 2%.
Regarding claim 7, Gratzel teaches:
wherein the rotational speed of the pin is 6,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm [figure 7].
Regarding claim 14, Gratzel does not explicitly teach:
wherein the shoulder has a hardness of at least 50 HRC.
However, Gratzel teaches the shoulder is made of tool steel; pg. 1933. The examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that tool steel has an HRC above 50 in order to be considered tool steel. Even so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a hardness above 50 in order to improve the wear resistance of the shoulder, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, Gratzel teaches:
wherein the rotational speed of the pin is altered during the method [the rotational speed is altered from zero to the final rpm and back to zero], whereas a torque with which the pin is driven and/or a torque with which the shoulder is driven essentially remain constant [figure 12 shows the forces acting on the shoulder and pin being essentially constant for a period of time which would also mean that during this period the torque would also be essentially constant].
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of this claim are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gratzel et al. “Advances in friction stir welding by separate control of shoulder and probe” in view of Xu “Properties of High Speed Friction Stir Welded 6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (2005/0249978 A1).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 13, Gratzel does not teach:
wherein the pin comprises of a material having a hardness of at least 70 HRC;
wherein the pin comprises a material having a bending strength of at least 1,700 N/mm2;
wherein the pin comprises a material having a fracture toughness of at least 8.3 MNm−3/2;
wherein the pin comprises a solid carbide, a highly abrasive alloy, and/or a ceramic comprising cubic boron nitride or polycrystalline cubic boron nitride (PCBN); and
wherein the shoulder has a lower hardness than the pin of the friction stir welding tool.
Yao teaches FSW apparatus (41) wherein shoulder (42) and pin (44) are made of PCBN such that the pin is harder than the shoulder; 0036.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the pin and shoulder of Gratzel as taught by Yao in order to improve the thermal, hardness, and/or wear resistance of the FSW tool. Note that the applicant achieves the claimed properties by making the tool of PCBN, thus, it naturally flows that prior art PCBN FSW tool would also have the claimed properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gratzel et al. “Advances in friction stir welding by separate control of shoulder and probe” in view of Xu “Properties of High Speed Friction Stir Welded 6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada (US 2015/0183054 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Gratzel does not teach:
wherein the pin has a CVD coating and/or a PVD coating.
Okada teaches double acting friction stir welding apparatus (50) wherein pin member (11) is coated with DLC in order to reduce the tool’s affinity for aluminum; 0054-0058.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the coating of Okada into Gratzel in order to reduce the tool’s affinity for aluminum. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the Okada FSW apparatus to perform the FSW of Gratzel in order to take advantage of the tool’s low aluminum affinity.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gratzel et al. “Advances in friction stir welding by separate control of shoulder and probe” in view of Xu “Properties of High Speed Friction Stir Welded 6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burford et al. (US 2004/0129763 A1). Note that this claim 15 rejection is an alternate rejection to that above.
Regarding claim 16-18, and 20, Gratzel does not teach:
wherein a torque with which the shoulder is driven and a torque with which the pin is driven are measured, during the method;
wherein the torque with which the shoulder is driven and/or the torque with which the pin is driven is continuously measured and compared with a setpoint value, and the rotational speed of the shoulder is reduced if a magnitude of the torque with which the shoulder is driven and/or a magnitude of the torque with which the pin is driven is less than 90% of the setpoint value;
wherein the torque with which the shoulder is driven and/or the torque with which the pin is driven is continuously measured and compared with a setpoint value, and the rotational speed of the shoulder is increased if a magnitude of the torque with which the shoulder is driven and/or a magnitude of the torque with which the pin is driven is more than 110% of the setpoint value; and
wherein the advancement speed is increased with a constant rotational speed of the pin and shoulder, as long as a magnitude of the torque with which the shoulder is driven and/or a magnitude of a torque with which the pin is driven deviates from a setpoint value by less than 30%.
Burford teaches using torque to control the travel speed and rotational speed of the FSW tool by constantly monitoring the torque and when the torque falls outside a desired range the travel speed and/or the rotational speed are increased/decreased to bring the torque back into the desired range in order to provide robust welds of known properties; 0042-0052 and figure 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Burford torque control concept into Gratzel in order to produce robust welds of known properties. In doing so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to independently monitor and control the torque of the pin and shoulder since they are independent of each other and independently contribute to the weld. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set any range for the pin and shoulder about a given set point since Burford teaches any number of ranges can be set, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Gratzel does not teach:
wherein the rotational speed of the pin is altered during the method, whereas a torque with which the pin is driven and/or a torque with which the shoulder is driven essentially remain constant; or
wherein the rotational speed of the pin is altered to a lesser extent than the rotational speed of the shoulder or not at all.
Since the torque of the pin and shoulder are being independently monitored and controlled, as noted in the rejection of claims 16-18 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the rotational speed(s) of the pin, shoulder, or both when they fall outside the desired range.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gratzel et al. “Advances in friction stir welding by separate control of shoulder and probe” in view of Xu “Properties of High Speed Friction Stir Welded 6063-T6 Aluminum Alloy” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson et al. “Evaluation of torque as a means of in-process sensing of tool wear in friction stir welding of metal matrix composites”.
Regarding claim 21, Gratzel does not teach:
wherein a tool wear is deduced on the basis of the measured torque and/or on the basis of a measured change in torque and the friction stir welding tool is replaced when a predefined wear determined in such a manner is exceeded.
Gibson teaches there is a correlation between torque and FSW tool wear, and the decay of the torque in-process signal can be exploited to monitor and control tool wear during FSW; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Gibson tool wear concept into Gratzel in order to monitor FSW tool wear and to replace the tool when the wear/torque exceeds a desired limit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Applicant submits that a person ordinarily skilled in the art reviewing GRATZEL and XU would have found no suggestion for modifying/increasing the GRATZEL's disclosed travel/advancement speed by 1500% to utilize the speed described in XU, as there is no arguable suggestion that the structure of GRATZEL's friction stir welding device could withstand such a drastic increase in travel/advancement speed.
Regarding Gratzel’s FSW apparatus, there is no evidence provided to support that it could not withstand the speed. Even so, if the Gratzel FSW apparatus was not capable of doing so one of ordinary skill in the art wanting to increase the travel as noted could without a doubt find and incorporate such an apparatus. Additionally, the Xu FSW apparatus is capable of traveling at the claimed speeds. Note the instant application similarly provides no direction as to how to make a FSW apparatus that can travel at the claimed speeds.
The applicant argues,
“Applicant submits that, given the rotational speed of GRATZEL's pin is np=4000 or 6000, the rotational speed of GRATZEL's shoulder is ns=2500 and the travel/advancement speed of GRATZEL as modified by XU's speed is v=3, these values plugged into the equation now recited in Applicant's independent claim 1” would not satisfy the equation of claim 1.
Note that the examiner did not state to increase the travel speed to only 3 m/min but instead “up to 3 m/min” which includes speeds less than 3 m/min. In order to help clarify this the examiner has included a table in the rejection of claim 1 showing speeds that will satisfy the claimed equation.
The applicant argues,
“Furthermore, Applicant submits that, in contrast to GRATZEL, XU's disclosure refers to a one-piece tool, such that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have found no discernible teaching to suggest modifying a two-piece tool in which the pin and shoulder rotate at different speeds. Therefore, Applicant submits that a person ordinarily skilled in the art would have found no articulated reasoning with technical underpinnings to suggest modifying GRATZEL in view of XU in the manner alleged by the Examiner, such that the pending rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that the parameters taught by Xu could not be used for Gratzel or vice versa. Gratzel teaches the shoulder may spin in the same direction, opposite direction, or not at all relative to the pin; figure 1. The key teaching here being Gratzel teaches the pin and shoulder can both spin in the same direction at the same speed; figure 1, which is functionally the equivalent of a one piece tool.
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights