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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 4-7 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 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the method of reactivating the anodising of the first and second element is the actual method and the previous steps are not relevant or if the method should be further comprising a step of reactivating. There are two different transition clauses within the same claim. It appears that the claim should be “further comprising”.
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) 1, 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (2014/0023874A1) in view of Sato et al. (JP2005152971A).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuda discloses a method for joining a first element to a second element, the method comprising a step of producing a weld seam by friction stir welding the first element to the second element, the method also comprising a step of oxidising the weld seam achieved by chemical conversion (sulfuric acid) once the friction stir welding has been carried out, the method comprising anodising of the first element and second element once the friction stir welding has been carried out (claim 1, paragraphs 0036-0037, figure 1). Since the weld seam and the surfaces of the workpieces are anodized, the claim limitations are met.
Fukuda does not specifically disclose a step of anodising the first element creating a first layer, a step of anodising the second element creating a second layer prior to welding and that the anodised layers are crushed in the weld seam. However, Sato discloses friction stir welding a first element and a second element that have anodized layers 20 formed on the surfaces prior to friction stir welding (see computer English translation and figure 3). Since Sato discloses a similar process and materials as the current invention, it is the Examiner’s position that the anodized layers are crushed in the weld seam during the welding process. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have anodized layers formed on the first and second element prior to welding because Sato states that it forms a strong element against impact and corrosion (see English translation).
Fukuda discloses milling after welding and then anodizing the surfaces of the elements/workpieces. This would be considered reactivating of the anodizing layer when the elements are anodized prior to welding.
Regarding claim 4, Sato discloses a step of applying a paint system comprising a primer 22 (figure 3, see computer translation).
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses a step of applying sealant (primer 22) to a contact area between the first element and the second element (see figure 3) so as to seal off access to an area not welded by the weld seam. Each workpiece surface is sealed by the primer.
Regarding claim 6, Fukuda discloses that it is known to anodize the workpieces after welding in a sulfuric acid. Therefore, to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use the same well-known method to anodize the elements prior to welding.
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses that the first element and the second element each comprise an aluminum alloy (see computer translation about figure 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
The Applicant argues that natural oxidation of aluminum is not local anodizing or chemical conversion. The natural oxidation of aluminum applies to the entirety of the first element, the second element, and the weld seam. The claim requires local anodizing or chemical conversion.
The Examiner disagrees. The claim does not require local anodizing or local chemical conversion. The chemical conversion does not have to be local. Furthermore, the term local is not clearly defined. Local can be any amount of the elements and is not defined in the specification or the claim as being only the weld seam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights