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 III, species 1B in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner contacted Applicant because the response stated that they elected group I, species 1B and that claims 60-66 read on this election. However, claims 60-66 were from group III. The Applicant clarified that they want to elect group III, claims 60-66.
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 60-66 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 60 recites the limitation "the steps of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 60 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a workpiece” in line 3 is the same “a workpiece” in line 1, or if it is a different workpiece. For the purpose of examination, they are the same workpiece.
Claim 62 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the nonplanar surface” is required. Claim 60 states that the bonding surface includes at least one of a non-planar surface and an aperture defined in a central region of the bonding surface. The non-planar surface is not required for claim 60. Is this claim only conditional if claim 60 is rejected with a non-planar surface? For the purpose of examination, the non-planar surface is conditional and is not required if not used to reject claim 60.
Claim 63 is indefinite because it is unclear if “the aperture defined in the central region” is required. Claim 60 states that the bonding surface includes at least one of a non-planar surface and an aperture defined in a central region of the bonding surface. The aperture is not required for claim 60. Is this claim only conditional if claim 60 is rejected with an aperture? For the purpose of examination, the aperture is conditional and is not required if not used to reject claim 60.
Claim 64 is indefinite because it is unclear if both “the nonplanar surface and the aperture defined in the central region” is required. Claim 60 states that the bonding surface includes at least one of a non-planar surface and an aperture defined in a central region of the bonding surface. Both the nonplanar surface and the aperture defined in the central region are not required for claim 60. Is this claim only conditional if claim 60 is rejected with both? For the purpose of examination, the limitation is conditional and is not required if not used to reject claim 60.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 60, 63-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Copperthite et al. (2021/0379690A1).
Regarding claim 60, Copperthite discloses a method of ultrasonically welding a conductive pin 200b1 to a workpiece 102a1, 102a2, 102a3, the method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a workpiece 102a1, 102a2, 102a3; and (b) ultrasonically welding the conductive pin 200b1 to the workpiece, the conductive pin including a body portion (vertical part of the pin), and a pin head (bottom part of pin after it bends 90 degrees) at one end of the body portion (figure 3a, 4), the pin head defining a bonding surface configured to be ultrasonically welded to the workpiece, the bonding surface including at least one of (i) a nonplanar surface and (ii) an aperture defined in a central region of the bonding surface (paragraphs 0026, 0030-0032, figures 3a, 4). Copperthite states in paragraph 0026 that the pin can have a round cross section. This would indicate that the pin head is curved, not planar. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 63, since the rejection of claim 60 used the nonplanar surface, the limitation “applying process parameters, using a control system, during the ultrasonic welding based on the aperture defined in the central region” is conditional and not required since the aperture is not required for claim 60.
Regarding claim 64, since the rejection of claim 60 used the nonplanar surface, the limitation “applying process parameters, using a control system, during the ultrasonic welding based on the nonplanar surface and the aperture defined in the central region of the nonplanar surface” is conditional and not required since the aperture is not required for claim 60.
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) 61-62, 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copperthite et al. (2021/0379690A1) as applied to claim 60 above, and further in view of Stroh et al. (2016/0023297A1) and The Welder (Understanding Ultrasonic Welding, https://www.thefabricator.com/thewelder/article/arcwelding/understanding-ultrasonic-welding, using wayback machine, 5/30/2023).
Regarding claims 61-62, Copperthite does not specifically disclose that step (b) includes applying process parameters, using a control system, during the ultrasonic welding based on the bonding surface (non-planar surface). However, Stroh discloses that it is known in the art to use a computer system for ultrasonic welding wherein the welding parameters and cross sections of materials are inputted and appropriately stored values can be retrieved (paragraph 0034). Stroh discloses inputting cross sections of materials, so it would necessarily flow that the geometry of a non-planar surface would be inputted into the computer. It would also flow that since the cross section of the material is being inputted into the computer with the welding parameters that the parameters are based on the cross section of the material (non-planar surface). If the Applicant does not agree, the Examiner has provided The Welder for further support. The Welder states that geometry of the workpiece play an important role when determining what parameters need to be used during ultrasonic welding. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known control system (computer) for applying process parameters based on the non-planar surface to ensure that the correct welding process is performed. By not using the correct parameters based on geometry of the workpiece, the weld may be weak or incomplete.
Regarding claim 65, Copperthite does not specifically disclose that step (b) includes applying process parameters, using a control system, during the ultrasonic welding, wherein the process parameters include at least one of bonding force, bonding energy, and bonding time. However, Stroh discloses that it is known in the art to use a computer system for ultrasonic welding wherein the welding parameters and cross sections of materials are inputted and appropriately stored values can be retrieved (paragraph 0034). Stroh is silent to the type of parameters; however; The Welder discloses that ultrasonic welding parameters include frequency, force, power, energy, materials, etc. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to apply processing parameters such as force and energy as they are well-known parameters required for ultrasonic welding. Applying the correct force and energy would ensure that the correct ultrasonic weld is created.
Regarding claim 66, Copperthite discloses wherein the ultrasonic welding utilizes torsional vibration applied by a sonotrode configured to ultrasonically weld the conductive pin to the workpiece (paragraph 0025), but does not disclose applying process parameters using a control system. However, Stroh discloses that it is known in the art to use a computer system for ultrasonic welding wherein the welding parameters and cross sections of materials are inputted and appropriately stored values can be retrieved (paragraph 0034). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to apply process parameters using a computer (control system) to automate the system to cut back on processing time, prevent human error, and to create consistent bond for each pin.
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