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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oikawa et al. (US 8,962,249 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Oikawa et al. discloses a method for evaluating susceptibility to liquid metal embrittlement cracking in a resistance spot welded portion of a steel sheet (evaluation cracking resulting from solidification of molten parts of steel plates after welding; c. 1, ll. 55-66), the method comprising: a welding process (resistance spot welding) of overlapping a first steel sheet (1A) and a second steel sheet (1B), one or both of which are galvanized steel sheets (steep plates with a Zinc plating layer; c. 15, ll. 25-29), without an intervening gap to obtain a sheet combination, sandwiching the sheet combination between a pair of electrodes (2A, 2B) having an axial direction perpendicular to main surfaces of the first steel sheet (1A) and the second steel sheet (steel plates 1A and 1B are overlapped without an intervening gap and sandwiched between electrodes 2A and 2B which have an axial direction perpendicular to main surfaces of steel plates 1A and 1B; fig. 3A), and applying current and pressure via the electrodes (2A, 2B) to perform resistance spot welding (energization and pressure are applied via electrodes 2A and 2B to perform spot welding; c. 16, ll. 20-27 and c. 36, ll. 15-20); a strain applying process (cross tensile test) of applying one or both of bending strain and tensile strain controlled to a defined amount of strain to a welded portion (3) of the second steel sheet (1B) at the same time as or after the end of the current application of the resistance spot welding (a cross-tensile test is performed in which at least a predetermined tensile strain is applied to a nugget 3 of plates 1A and 1B after a spot welding process; c. 36, ll. 45-50); an observation process of observing the welded portion (3) of the second steel sheet (1B) to ascertain the presence or absence of liquid metal embrittlement cracking as an observation result (fracture appearance of nugget 3 of plates 1A and 1B is observed, including presence of a plug fracture, peel fracture, or brittle fracture; c. 36, ll. 51-67); and an evaluation process of evaluating susceptibility to liquid metal embrittlement cracking in the welded portion (3) of the second steel sheet (1B) based on the observation result (evaluation of various steel plates exposed to various conditions is evaluated based on the observed occurrence of fractures or cracks; Tables 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Oikawa et al. discloses wherein the welding process performed a plurality of times is performed under the same welding conditions (resistance spot welding is performed a plurality of times under the same welding conditions for each of for example, six test pieces; c. 26, ll. 22-27 and 35-36).
Regarding claim 7, Oikawa et al. discloses wherein the tensile strain (cross-tensile test) is applied in the strain applying process by applying tensile deformation to the second steel sheet (a cross-tensile test includes applying tensile deformation to plates 21A and 21B; fig. 7 and c. 31, ll. 10-15).
Regarding claim 8, Oikawa et al. discloses wherein the observation process comprises separating the first steel sheet (1A) from the second steel sheet (1B) and observing the welded portion (3) of the second steel sheet (1B) from a main surface side where the second steel sheet (1B) was welded to the first steel sheet (after a cross-tensile test is performed, a fracture appearance of each separate plate 21A and 21B is observed; c. 36, ll. 51-57 and figs. 9A-9C).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa et al. (US 8,962,249 B2) in view of Adachi et al. (JP 2004-322182 A).
Regarding claim 6, Oikawa et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Although Oikawa et al. discloses a pair of electrodes (2A, 2B; figs. 3A and 3B) applying pressure to first and second steel sheets (1A, 1B), Oikawa et al. is silent on applying a bending strain.
Adachi et al. teaches a spot welding method in which a bending strain is applied (figs. 3 and 4) in a strain applying process by applying bending deformation to a second steel sheet (21) so that the second steel sheet has a certain curvature (steel plates 21 are bent to a certain curvature by pressure from electrode 17B; Abstract, Solution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Oikawa et al. with the bending strain of Adachi et al. to improve a welding strength between thicker sheets (Abstract, Problem To Be Solved).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “the strain applying process is performed under a plurality of different conditions… consisting of a first set of conditions where liquid metal embrittlement cracking occurs in the welded portion of the second steel sheet and a second set of conditions where liquid metal embrittlement cracking does not occur in the welded portion of the second steel sheet, and the evaluation process comprises: identifying a location of occurrence of the liquid metal embrittlement cracking in the welded portion of the second steel sheet in at least one of the first set of conditions; determining, among the plurality of conditions, (i) for the first set of conditions, temperature at the time of applying strain at the location of occurrence as a strain application temperature, and (ii) for the second set of conditions, temperature at the time of applying strain at a location corresponding to the location of occurrence as a strain application temperature; determining a relationship between the strain application temperature and the defined amount of strain and the presence or absence of liquid metal embrittlement cracking, based on the observation results for the plurality of conditions; and evaluating the susceptibility to liquid metal embrittlement cracking in the welded portion of the second steel sheet based on the relationship” in combination with the remaining claim elements as recited in claims 2-4.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ISO 14273 Preview (Resistance welding — Destructive testing of welds — Specimen dimensions and procedure for tensile shear testing resistance spot and embossed projection welds) is cited for its disclosure of evaluating resistance weld quality by performing tensile shear tests (page 2).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is (571)272-8348. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights