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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 and 17-19 in the reply filed on 5/4/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It appears that phrase “to simultaneous form the first part and the second part” in line 2 should recite: simultaneously. Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (“Control of defects of the deep drawing of tailor-welded blanks for complex-shape automotive panel”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Jan. 2022, of record IDS, hereafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method of simultaneously forming a plurality of automotive parts (pg. 1- abstract & introduction) comprising: placing a common welded blank (door panel/blank- fig. 1) having a first portion (upper portion of door panel- fig. 1) joined to a second portion (lower portion of the door panel) via a weld into a die set (fig. 6, pg. 3238); and simultaneously forming a first part (left door panel) in the first portion of the common welded blank and a second part (right door panel) in the second portion of the common welded blank with the die set (figs. 1, 5, 8, 13-14; pg. 3239, 3243).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses that the first portion of the common welded blank having a first thickness being different than a second thickness of the second portion to simultaneously form the first part and the second part with different thicknesses (pg. 3236- section 2.1- blanks having differing thicknesses of 0.7 and 1.2 mm).
As to claim 6, Wang shows that each of the first portion and the second portion are sized approximately 50% of an overall size of the common welded blank (figs. 5, 8, 14).
As to claim 7, Wang shows that the first portion having a first shared edge disposed in abutting relationship with a second shared edge of the second portion, and the weld extends along the abutting first and second shared edges to form the common welded blank (figs. 1, 8).
As to claim 8, Wang discloses that the weld is a laser weld (section 2.1).
As to claim 18, Wang shows that the first part has a first profile being different (differing edge/notch distributions- figs. 8, 14) than a second profile of the second part. Examiner notes that any difference in profile/shape meets this broad claim.
As to claim 19, Wang shows that the die set includes an upper cavity and a lower punch (figs. 6, 9).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Briand et al. (US 2002/0008094, hereafter “Briand”).
As to claims 3-5, Wang is silent with respect to using different aluminum grades for the first and second portions of the welded blank. However, such feature is known in the art. Briand teaches it has been known in the automobile industry to join together two sheets or workpieces of aluminum made of different thicknesses and/or different grades intended for welding of tailored blanks [0018-0019]; welded blank/workpieces are pressed in order to give them final shapes in the manufacture of a car body, for example, the doors, the roof, hood, trunk etc. [0020]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize different aluminum grades for the first portion and the second portion of the welded blank in Wang since such material is conventionally used as evidenced by Briand. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use different aluminum grades in the welded blank of Wang in order to fabricate the desired structural part such as the door, roof, etc. as suggested by Briand.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (“Control of defects of the deep drawing of tailor-welded blanks for complex-shape automotive panel”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Jan. 2022).
As to claim 17, Wang shows that the first part and the second part are spaced from one another by a distance extending through the weld seam (fig. 1). It is noted that any distance meets the claim. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a distance between the first part and the second part based on desired design of the structural part such as door panel as suggested in the process design of Wang (Section 4- figs. 7-8).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights