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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 broadens the predetermined setpoint value recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Nicholson et al. (US 2025/0205973 A1) and Lee et al. “Characterization of Joint Quality in Ultrasonic Welding of Battery Tabs”.
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches:
A method comprising:
applying a clamping force to a sonotrode [sonotrode (12); figure 1 which is a wedge-reed system] to bring the sonotrode into contact with an upper surface of a first workpiece [workpiece (14)] of a workpiece stack, the first workpiece being in direct or indirect contact with a second workpiece [workpiece (16)] of the workpiece stack along a faying joint interface [see figure 1];
applying power to a transducer [power is supplied to transducer (10) via the connected power supply] of an ultrasonic spot welding apparatus [see figure 1], the transducer being physically coupled to the sonotrode [see figure 1], the sonotrode being opposite of an anvil [anvil], such that the first and second workpieces are disposed between the sonotrode and the anvil [see figure 1].
AAPA does not teach:
the clamping force of at least 50 N;
measuring, using a position sensor, a displacement of the sonotrode relative to an initial position of the sonotrode in which the sonotrode contacts the upper surface of the first workpiece but does not penetrate the first workpiece, the displacement of the sonotrode being measured in a direction that is orthogonal to the plane defined by the faying joint interface; and
comparing the displacement of the sonotrode with a user-selectable predetermined setpoint value, the predetermined setpoint value being between 0.2 mm and 2.0 mm;
in response to the displacement of the sonotrode exceeding the predetermined setpoint value due to a softening of the first and second workpieces at the faying joint interface, terminating the application of power to the ultrasonic transducer or retracting the sonotrode from the workpiece stack to create a spot weld joint at the faying joint interface.
Concerning the displacement sensor and comparing:
Nicholson teaches ultrasonic welding station (300) for ultrasonic welding of stacked workpieces (310, 312) , the station comprises horn (306), lift (304), and linear displacement transducer (314); wherein the linear transducer measures the vertical distance between the sonotrode and the lift, the distance of the weld collapse can be determined by taking a point of reference when the set of parts (312) and the horn (306) first come into contact, the applied force is 0-500 N, once the weld collapse distance reaches a predetermined weld collapse distance/setpoint from the point of reference the weld collapse trigger can be satisfied (i.e. the collapse distance is compared to the trigger distance) and the welding operation is terminated/completed, the weld collapse trigger can be predetermined by a user, and after the weld is completed the vibrations are stopped and the lift is moved away; 0133, 0157-0160, and 0174.
Lee teaches ultrasonic welding (UW) of metal lacks the metallurgical defects of fusion welding; pg. 1, and UW copper sheets to nickel plated copper sheets, wherein the vibration direction is parallel to the faying surface of the sheets; pg. 2, and the horn height or deformed material thickness can be used to determine the quality of a weld; pg. 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nicholson into AAPA in order to repeatably reproduce a desired weld. 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 have the displacement sensor measure the vertical displacement/position of the sonotrode relative to the anvil since the anvil is stationary. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the displacement/position of the sonotrode as the trigger since it is the object moving and/or Lee teaches this a known means for determining quality. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to slightly exceed the weld collapse trigger to ensure it has been met. Furthermore, since the trigger would reasonably include slightly exceeding the trigger, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the terminating of the weld at the trigger would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Concerning the claimed force range:
Nicholson and the claims differ in that Nicholson does not teach the exact same ranges as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time/before the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Nicholson overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003); In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974), and MPEP 2144.05. This reasoning applies to any claim and limitation in this action where a range is being claimed.
Concerning the set point value:
Nicholson teaches a calibration process can include running a plurality of calibration weld cycles on a plurality of sample sets of identical parts over a range of each weld parameter to determine a suitable termination threshold to use for each of the weld parameters that results in acceptable (or optimum) weld quality for a batch of the sample sets; 0167. While Lee shows there is a range of thickness that falls in “good”; figure 14.
Since the amount of sonotrode displacement/deformed material thickness is a result effective variable it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform a calibration process to determine such ranges/setpoint values for any desired weldment. Note, that these ranges/setpoint values would vary due to weldment alloys, thicknesses, shapes, welder, process parameters, etc. and thus ranges/setpoints that fall within those claimed are obvious, minus any unexpected results.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art process/apparatus, i.e. the process/apparatus based on the combined prior art references above, is identical procedurally and structurally to the claimed process/apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as the softening. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 11, all of the limitations of this claim are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above except the following:
a controller coupled to the output of the position sensor; the controller being configured to perform the method recited in claim 1.
Nicholson teaches control system (220) is configured to perform the various disclosed methods and is coupled to receive data from the displacement sensor; 0016, 0119, and figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Nicholson controller into the prior art wedge-reed system in order to automate the prior art process/apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, AAPA teaches:
wherein the spot weld joint is a solid-state weld joint, such that a melting temperature of the first workpiece and the second workpiece is not exceeded [0005].
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12, these claims are addressed in the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claims 8-10, and 18-20, AAPA does not teach:
wherein the first workpiece comprises a first material and wherein the second workpiece comprises a second material, the first material being different than the second material;
wherein the first workpiece comprises a first material and wherein the second workpiece comprises a second material, the first material being identical to the second material; and
wherein the first workpiece and the second workpiece include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, steel, or alloys thereof.
Note that AAPA intrinsically welds one of first two limitations since they are opposites.
AAPA teaches Al and Mg alloys are resistance welded together but have defects; 0004.
Lee teaches ultrasonic welding (UW) of metal lacks the metallurgical defects of fusion welding; pg. 1, and UW copper sheets to nickel plated copper sheets; pg. 9.
The examiner notes that the lack of metallurgical defects is because ultrasonic welding of metals is a solid state welding process; i.e. welding wherein metal is not melted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to weld the Al and Mg alloys of AAPA using the prior art method/apparatus in order to avoid the defects of fusion welding.
As for welding identical materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to weld the copper sheets of Lee since they are a desired weldment.
Lastly, while claims 18-20 are material worked upon and do not further limit the apparatus structurally, the above still addresses them if the applicant proves otherwise.
Regarding claim 17, AAPA does not teach:
wherein the measured displacement of the sonotrode corresponds to a depth of an indentation in the upper workpiece of the workpiece stack.
Lee teaches the depth of the indentation is within the upper sheet; Table 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to produce a weld in this manner as it is known to do so, minus any unexpected results. In doing so, the displacement of the horn would correspond to this depth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
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