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 .
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 2-3, 5-7, 10 is 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 2 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a surface of the tip-end part” is different from “a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface” of claim 1. It would appear that they are the same surface. The Examiner requests the Applicant to please clarify.
Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a surface of the tip-end part” is different from “a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface” of claim 1. It would appear that they are the same surface. The Examiner requests the Applicant to please clarify.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a surface of the tip-end part” is different from “a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface” of claim 1. It would appear that they are the same surface. The Examiner requests the Applicant to please clarify.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a surface of the tip-end part” is different from “a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface” of claim 1. It would appear that they are the same surface. The Examiner requests the Applicant to please clarify.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a tip-end part of the shoulder member” is the same tip-end part of the shoulder from claim 1 or if this is a different tip-end part of the shoulder. For the purpose of examination, they are the same tip-end part.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stol et al. (2006/0073151A1) in view of Imamura et al. (2011/0099808A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stol discloses a friction stir welding apparatus, comprising: a pin member 62, 68 formed in a solid cylindrical shape; a shoulder member 44 formed in a hollow cylindrical shape, the pin member being configured to be inserted in the shoulder member (figures 14-15, paragraph 0048-0061); wherein a tip-end part of the shoulder member is formed in a tapered shape the tip-end part of the shoulder member has an inner circumferential surface, an outer circumferential surface, and a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface at a distal end of the shoulder member and the outer circumferential surface of the tip-end part is an inclined surface such that an outer diameter of the tip-end part decreases in a direction toward the distal end of the shoulder member (shown below). Since “part” is not defined, a “part” can be any portion/area of the shoulder. As shown below, the “part” is a cross-sectional area portion of the shoulder that forms a taped part. Therefore, the claim limitation is met by Stol.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stol does not specifically disclose a rotary actuator configured to rotate the pin member and the shoulder member on an axis along an axial center of the pin member; and a linear actuator configured to linearly move each of the pin member and the shoulder member along the axis. However, Imamura discloses a friction stir welding apparatus that includes both a linear drive and rotary drive for moving the tool (paragraphs 0038, 0054-0055, 0070, figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have linear and rotational drives/actuators in order to ensure that the tool is rotating a desired speed and the tool is inserted at the correct depth to create the most ideal joint. The drives allow the user precise control over the friction stir welding tool to prevent incorrect/incomplete welds.
The limitation of the apparatus being a friction stir spot welding apparatus that joins a to-be-joined object by softening the object with frictional heat is considered intended use and does not further limit the apparatus. Since Stol discloses using the apparatus for friction stir welding, it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus can be used for friction stir spot welding of the joins with frictional heat as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Stol discloses that a surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member and a tip-end surface of the pin member are co-planer, when seen horizontally (the cross-sectional surface as shown in figure 15). The horizontal plane is not defined, so it can be from any orientation of the tool. Therefore, when the length of the tool is horizontal (figure 15 turned 90 degrees) the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 3, Stol discloses a surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member projects further than a tip-end surface of the pin member, when seen horizontally (figure 15). The horizontal direction is not clearly defined and can be any orientation of the tool. Therefore, when the length of the tool is vertical (shown in figure 15), the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 5, Stol shows an angle, but does not specifically disclose that wherein the tip-end part of the shoulder member is configured so that an angle formed between a surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member and the outer circumferential surface of the shoulder member is less than 45 degrees, when seen horizontally. However, the current specification only states that it is preferable that the angle is less than 45 degrees. There is no criticality disclosed so it appears that this is a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle for the tip-end part so that the plasticized material is properly moved inwardly toward the base of the pin.
Regarding claim 6, Stol discloses that an inner circumferential surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member is inclined (figure 15, shown above).
Regarding claim 7, Stol discloses that the inner circumferential surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member is inclined (shown above, figure 15), but does not specifically disclose that wherein the tip-end part of the shoulder member is configured so that an angle formed between a surface of the tip-end part of the shoulder member and the inner circumferential surface of the shoulder member is less than 45 degrees, when seen horizontally. However, the current specification only states that it is preferable that the angle is less than 45 degrees. There is no criticality disclosed so it appears that this is a design choice. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal angle for the tip-end part so that the plasticized material is properly moved inwardly toward the base of the pin.
Regarding claim 10, Stol discloses that a tip-end part of the shoulder member is formed so that a radial cross-sectional area of the tip-end part becomes smaller as the tip-end part goes toward a tip end of the shoulder member (figure 15, shown above).
Regarding claim 11, Stol discloses a friction stir welding apparatus, comprising: a pin member 62, 68 formed in a solid cylindrical shape; a shoulder member 44 formed in a hollow cylindrical shape, the pin member being configured to be inserted in the shoulder member (figures 14-15, paragraph 0048-0061), wherein a tip-end part of the shoulder member is formed in a tapered shape; the tip-end part of the shoulder member has an inner circumferential surface, an outer circumferential surface, and a tip surface between the inner circumferential surface and the outer circumferential surface at a distal end of the shoulder member; the outer circumferential surface of the tip-end part is an inclined surface such that an outer diameter of the tip-end part decreases in a direction toward the distal end of the shoulder member; the inner circumferential surface of the tip-end part is an inclined surface such that an inner diameter of the tip-end part increases in the direction toward the distal end of the shoulder member (shown below). Since “part” is not defined, a “part” can be any portion/area of the shoulder. As shown below, the “part” is a cross-sectional area portion of the shoulder that forms a taped part. Therefore, the claim limitation is met by Stol.
PNG
media_image1.png
427
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stol does not specifically disclose a rotary actuator configured to rotate the pin member and the shoulder member on an axis along an axial center of the pin member; and a linear actuator configured to linearly move each of the pin member and the shoulder member along the axis. However, Imamura discloses a friction stir welding apparatus that includes both a linear drive and rotary drive for moving the tool (paragraphs 0038, 0054-0055, 0070, figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have linear and rotational drives/actuators in order to ensure that the tool is rotating a desired speed and the tool is inserted at the correct depth to create the most ideal joint. The drives allow the user precise control over the friction stir welding tool to prevent incorrect/incomplete welds.
The limitation of the apparatus being a friction stir spot welding apparatus that joins a to-be-joined object by softening the object with frictional heat is considered intended use and does not further limit the apparatus. Since Stol discloses using the apparatus for friction stir welding, it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus can be used for friction stir spot welding of the joins with frictional heat as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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