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 with traverse of group II, claims 13-18 in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 19 have been amended and there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the methods have a different classification which would require a separate search. Furthermore, the apparatus does not have to be used for forming a tubular structure or for forming a joint. The apparatus can be used for repairing a crack in a workpiece.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 16-18 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 16 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “a spiral feature defined by a protrusion or a recess extending outward or inward from a face of the tool”. How does a spiral feature defined by a recess extend outward? How does a protrusion extend inward? Is the Applicant attempting to state that the protrusion extends outward and the recess extends inward? For the purpose of examination, it will be read as the protrusion extends outward and the recess extends inward. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
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) 13-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odakura et al. (2018/0071860A1) in view of Subramanian et al. (2005/0045695A1).
Regarding claim 13, Odakura discloses an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a support arm 10e coupled with or comprising a spindle housing 20; and a tool 2, the tool comprising a pin 2b protruding outward from a face of the tool; wherein tool is oriented to extend laterally outward from the support arm (figures 1-2);
Odakura does not specifically disclose a spindle shaft supported by the spindle housing the tool removably coupled to the spindle shaft the spindle shaft oriented to extend laterally outward from the support arm. However, Subramanian discloses a friction stir welding tool with a spindle shaft (top part, opposite the pin 12, that is holding the shank 20) in a spindle housing 24 with a pin 12 (figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a spindle shaft as it is attached to a drive mechanism that rotates and extends the pin. The spindle shaft allows the user to extend the pin outside of the housing to a desired distance based on the required welding process. The term “removably” does not further limit the structure. The tool is capable of being removed to the spindle shaft.
The limitation “for performing friction stir welding (FSW) on an interior face of a workpiece” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus of Odakura would be capable of friction stir welding on an interior face of a workpiece.
The limitation “to engage an interior face of a workpiece where a forging force and rotation between a tool and the workpiece are established” is functional and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since the prior art discloses the claimed structure it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
The limitation “and wherein the support arm, spindle shaft, spindle housing, and tool are sized and shaped to fit within a cross section defined by the workpiece when extended within the workpiece by the support arm” is functional and dependent on the material worked upon. This limitation does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since the prior art discloses the claimed structure it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 14, Odakura discloses the forging force is transmitted through the support arm and spindle housing to the spindle shaft (through control device 30); and wherein the rotation of the spindle shaft is mechanically driven through the support arm (figure 1, paragraphs 0046-0057, 0070, 0094-0111). As shown in figure 1, the control device is connected to the base of the robot arm. The control device controls the movement of the robot arm, rotation, and force being applied. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the forging force is transmitted through the support arm and housing to the shaft.
Regarding claim 16, Subramanian discloses wherein the tool comprises: a shank 20 configured to be engaged by a tool holder 28; and a face defined by a body of the tool, the face defining a shoulder 16 extending along the face from an edge of the tool inward toward a center of the face; a pin 12 protruding outward from the face of the tool centered at the center of the face; and at least one spiral (threads) feature defined by a protrusion or a recess extending outward or inward from a face of the tool in an axial direction parallel to the forging force, the at least one spiral feature located between the shoulder and the pin (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Subramanian discloses that the pin comprises two or more flat regions on an outer diameter of the pin (figure 2 (top view shows at least two flat regions, paragraph 0017)).
Regarding claim 18, Subramanian discloses an outer diameter of the pin 12 comprises one or more sets of ridges or grooves (threads) extending at least partially circumferentially around the pin (figure 2).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odakura et al. (2018/0071860A1) in view of Subramanian et al. (2005/0045695A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (2018/0178293A1).
Regarding claim 15, Okadura does not specifically disclose wherein the spindle shaft is mechanically coupled with a wireless transmitter, the wireless transmitter configured to transmit data indicative of one or more monitored parameters, the one or more monitored parameters comprising a temperature, a rotational velocity associated with the tool, a rotational position of the tool, a force associated with the tool, or combinations thereof. However, Yamamoto discloses a friction stir welding tool wherein wireless transmitter is mechanically coupled to a spindle shaft and is used to monitor temperature, vibration and movement of the axis (figures 1, 5, abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0056-0062, 0087-0095). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a wireless transmitter to monitor parameters because it allows the user to monitor the tool in real time to ensure that there is no damage or over heating occurring during the bonding process.
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