Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/836,444

FRICTION-STIR SPOT WELDING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR OPERATING SAME

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 07, 2024
Examiner
SAAD, ERIN BARRY
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kawasaki Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
903 granted / 1252 resolved
+7.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1291
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.1%
-11.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1252 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions The restriction 10/3/2025 is withdrawn. The Applicant’s arguments were persuasive. The Examiner misunderstood the translation of the foreign reference used in the restriction. The prior art did not teach relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder in a state where the oil agent is held in the interlayer; and relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder so that the oil agent is discharged from the interlayer to outside through a tip opening of the hollow part. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first operation control” should be --a first operation control-- (line 7). Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “second operation control” should be --a second operation control-- (line 9). 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. Claims 3-8, 10-12 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 3 states “an outer peripheral surface” in line 3. Is this the same outer peripheral surface from claim 1 or is this a different outer peripheral surface? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same outer peripheral surface. Claim 3 states “an inner peripheral surface” in line 4. Is this the same inner peripheral surface from claim 1 or is this a different inner peripheral surface? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same inner peripheral surface. Claim 4 states “an outer peripheral surface” in line 4. Is this the same outer peripheral surface from claim 1 or is this a different outer peripheral surface? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same outer peripheral surface. Claim 4 states “an inner peripheral surface” in line 5. Is this the same inner peripheral surface from claim 1 or is this a different inner peripheral surface? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same inner peripheral surface. Claim 4 states “an oil agent” in line 10. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 and earlier in claim 4, or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 6 states “an oil agent” in line 2. Is this the same oil agent from claim 4 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 6 states “an oil agent” in line 6. Is this the same oil agent from claim 4 and earlier in claim 6, or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an elastic oil containing member”. Is the oil elastic or is the member elastic? Are both elastic? The Examiner is unsure which part of the limitation is elastic and requests that the Applicant please clarify. Claim 8 states “an oil agent” in line 2. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 10 states “an oil agent” in line 2. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 10 states “an oil agent” in line 5. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 and earlier in claim 10 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 11 states “an oil agent” in line 2. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 11 states “an oil agent” in line 6. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 and earlier in claim 11 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 12 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “an elastic oil containing member”. Is the oil elastic or is the member elastic? Are both elastic? The Examiner is unsure which part of the limitation is elastic and requests that the Applicant please clarify. Claim 12 states “an oil agent” in line 2. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Claim 12 states “an oil agent” in line 6. Is this the same oil agent from claim 1 or is this a different oil agent? For the purpose of examination, it will be the same oil agent. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2 and 9 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, prior art was not found that taught or suggested the apparatus as claimed that included a control unit that executes first operation control of relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder in a state where the oil agent is held in the interlayer; and second operation control of relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder so that the oil agent is discharged from the interlayer to outside through a tip opening of the hollow part. Regarding claim 9, prior art was not found that taught or suggested the method as claimed that included an oil agent interposed in an interlayer between an outer peripheral surface of the pin and an inner peripheral surface of the shoulder and relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder in a state where the oil agent is held in the interlayer when friction-stir welding is performed; and relatively moving the pin with respect to the shoulder so that the oil agent is discharged from the interlayer to outside through a tip opening of the hollow part when the oil agent is discharged from the interlayer. Claims 3-8, 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 07, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604771
DIRECT BONDING METHODS AND STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599983
SEMICONDUCTOR PROCESSING TOOL AND METHODS OF OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603467
Method for automated monitoring of a soldering process, soldering device with monitoring device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599987
FRICTION STIR SPOT WELDED JOINT AND PRODUCTION METHOD THEREFOR, AND FRICTION STIR SPOT WELDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593526
CONTINUOUS STRING WELDING DEVICE FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS AND WELDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+11.4%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1252 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month