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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “control system” of claims 11-20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
Claim 11 recites " A control system for an ultrasonic welding apparatus comprising: a power supply… a transducer… a sonotrode… an anvil… a position sensor… and a controller…” It is unclear if it is the control system or the welding apparatus that includes the elements after comprising. In the specification, the control system only includes a position sensor and is for an ultrasonic spot welding apparatus; PA pub 0009, while the ultrasonic welding apparatus (20) comprises these elements. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “An ultrasonic welding apparatus comprising”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “position sensor configured to” in claims 3, 11, and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nicholson et al. (US 2025/0205973 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholson discloses:
A method comprising:
applying a clamping force [0134] to a sonotrode [horn (306); figure 4-8] to bring the sonotrode into contact with an upper surface of a first workpiece of a workpiece stack [set of parts (312) include at least two workpieces; 0133 and figure 8], the first workpiece being in direct or indirect contact with a second workpiece along a faying joint interface [this is inherent to the set of parts since there are only two possibilities for contact], direct or indirect;
applying power to a transducer of an ultrasonic spot welding apparatus [ultrasonic welding station (300)], the transducer being physically coupled to the sonotrode [Figures 4-8 clearly show ultrasonic welding station (300) having horn (306) physically coupled to a transducer, which when powered produces vibrational energy/vibrations; 0135], the sonotrode being opposite of an anvil [lift (304)], such that the first and second workpieces are disposed between the sonotrode and the anvil [see figures 5-8] ;
measuring, using a position sensor [linear displacement transducer (316)], a displacement of the sonotrode relative to an initial position of the sonotrode in which the sonotrode does not penetrate the first workpiece [0157]; and
in response to the displacement of the sonotrode exceeding a predetermined setpoint value [0157], 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 [0157-0158].
Should the applicant prove that station (300) does not comprise a transducer the following applies.
The examiner notes that it is well-known that ultrasonic welding stations comprise a transducer/converter in order to convert supplied power to mechanical vibrations required for ultrasonic welding and to physically couple the transducer to the horn in order to transmit the vibrations to the horn.
Thus, it would have been obvious/necessary to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a transducer in station (300) and to power it in order to provide ultrasonic vibrations for welding.
Regarding claim 11, Nicholson discloses:
An ultrasonic welding apparatus comprising:
a power supply connected to an ultrasonic transducer [Figures 4-8 clearly show ultrasonic welding station (300) having horn (306) physically coupled to a transducer, which when powered produces vibrational energy/vibrations; 0135. While not show a power supply is inherently connected to the transducer in order to make the transducer work];
a sonotrode [horn (306)] in physical contact with the ultrasonic transducer;
an anvil [lift (304)] positioned opposite of the sonotrode, such that a workpiece stack [set of parts (312) include at least two workpieces; 0133 and figure 8] can be disposed between the sonotrode and the anvil [see figures 5-8];
a position sensor [linear displacement transducer (316)] configured to measure the position of the sonotrode during the application of ultrasonic vibrations to the sonotrode [0157]; and
a controller [device control system (220)] coupled to the output of the position sensor figure 2], the controller being configured to measure, based on the output of the position sensor, a displacement of the sonotrode relative to an initial position of the sonotrode in which the sonotrode contacts but does not penetrate an upper workpiece of the workpiece stack and, in response to the displacement of the sonotrode exceeding a predetermined setpoint value, terminate the application of ultrasonic energy to the sonotrode to create a spot weld joint at a faying joint interface within the workpiece stack [the system is configured to control all aspects of the station (300) so that it may perform the claimed welding process; 0119-0123, 0157-0158, 0160-0166, and figures 2-3].
Should the applicant prove that station (300) does not comprise a transducer the following applies.
The examiner notes that it is well-known that ultrasonic welding stations comprise a transducer/converter in order to convert supplied power to mechanical vibrations required for ultrasonic welding and to physically couple the transducer to the horn in order to transmit the vibrations to the horn. It is also well-known to connect a power supply to the transducer since a transducer cannot convert power it does not have.
Thus, it would have been obvious/necessary to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a power supply and a transducer in station (300) in order to provide power for the transducer so that it in turn is able to provide ultrasonic vibrations to the horn.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Nicholson discloses:
wherein the position sensor is configured to measure a vertical displacement of the sonotrode relative to the anvil [see figure 7].
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.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson et al. (US 2025/0205973 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. “Characterization of Joint Quality in Ultrasonic Welding of Battery Tabs”, of record.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 19, Nicholson does not teach:
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;
wherein the transducer is configured to induce vibrations in the sonotrode in a plane that is parallel to the faying joint interface;
wherein the workpiece stack includes first workpiece and a second workpiece;
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; or
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.
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.
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 practice the Lee method using a welding station like that of Nicholson since it is capable of terminating the weld when a desired horn displacement is reached. In doing so, the weld is a solid state weld; i.e. no metal is melted, the sonotrode induces parallel vibrations, and the sheets comprise an identical material, Cu, and a different material, Ni.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 13, and 14, Nicholson does not teach:
wherein the predetermined setpoint value is user-selectable and varies between 0.5% and 30% of a thickness of the workpiece stack; or
wherein the predetermined setpoint value is at least 0.2 mm.
However, 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 horn 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. Note, that these ranges/setpoints 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.
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Nicholson teaches:
wherein the position sensor is configured to measure the displacement of the sonotrode in a direction orthogonal to the faying joint interface [see figure 7].
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Nicholson does not teach:
wherein the first workpiece and the second workpiece include aluminum, magnesium, titanium, steel, or alloys thereof.
Lee teaches workpieces can be made from aluminum; pg. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the process taught by Nicholson in view of Lee could be used on any number of metals and combination of metals, including aluminum, in order to solid state weld them, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17, Nicholson 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.
Thus, the displacement of the horn would correspond to this depth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
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