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 1-15 and specie 1D, 2E, and 3I in the reply filed on 3/12/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicant states that the Species were incorrectly labeled. The Examiner acknowledges that the figures 22A, 23A and 24A belong together; 22B, 23B, and 24B belong together; and 22C, 23C, and 24C belong together.
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 5 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 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “generally horizontal plane”. Horizontal is something that runs parallel to the horizon or flat ground. How can something be generally horizontal? Does this mean that it is not actually horizontal? If so, how far from the horizontal would it be for it to be considered generally horizontal? The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
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) 1-8, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN115740727A) in view of Mironets et al. (20230039985A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meng discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece comprising: a nosecone 4 comprising: a sidewall extending from a first end to a second end, the second end (bottom of nosecone that contacts the workpiece 4) (figure 2) having a surface configured to be advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece; and a channel (opening where stirring head 1 is located) extending from the first end to the second end along a longitudinal axis of the nosecone; and a screw (bottom portion of stirring head 1) positioned within the channel, a central axis of the screw defining an angle that is less than 90 degrees relative to a plane that is perpendicular to surfaces of the first work-piece and the second work-piece as the surface of the nosecone advances along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (shown in figure 2).
Meng does not specifically disclose that the first end of the nosecone is configured to couple the nosecone to a robotic arm. However, Mironets discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing device wherein a robotic arm is coupled to a nosecone at a first end (figures 1-2, paragraphs 0034-0035). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a robotic arm in order to move the friction stir device in multiple directions to allow for precise alignment of the tool with the workpieces being worked upon.
Regarding claim 2, Meng discloses when the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece, the angle is a positive angle (figures 1-2). This is a process limitation and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Furthermore, this is dependent on then viewing angle/position. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation is met.
Regarding claims 3, 13, Meng discloses when the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece, the angle is a negative angle (figures 1-2). This is a process limitation and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Furthermore, this is dependent on then viewing angle/position. It is the Examiner’s position that this limitation is met.
Regarding claims 4, 14, Meng discloses a longitudinal axis of the nosecone and the plane perpendicular to surfaces of the first work-piece and the second work-piece define a non-90 degree angle (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Meng discloses that the surface comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion is in a first generally horizontal plane and the second portion is in second generally horizontal plane that is different than the first plane. Since “first portion” and “second portion” is not defined, they can be any part/portion/area of the surface. Any portion of the surface could be considered in a horizontal plane. Therefore, the claim limitation is met.
Regarding claim 6, Meng discloses a curved recess in the surface of the second end, the curved recess (the shape of the nosecone surface and opening are curved) configured to shape an outer profile of the weld line as the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Meng discloses that the curved recess extends from a perimeter of the channel to an outer edge of the surface of the second end (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, since the curved recess extends around the entire opening of the nosecone, it is the Examiner’s position that the recess is formed in a trailing end of the surface of the second end as the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Meng discloses that the screw is configured to penetrate a thickness of the first work-piece and a thickness of the second work-piece as the surface advances along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figure 2). The workpieces are the material worked upon. The material worked upon does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Meng shows that the screw penetrates the workpieces (figure 2). The workpieces are the material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since Meng shows the screw penetrating the workpieces, it is the Examiner’s position that Meng is capable of penetrating an entire thickness of the first work-piece and an entire thickness of the second work-piece as the surface advances along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece.
Regarding claim 12, Meng discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece comprising: a nosecone 2 comprising: a sidewall extending from a first end to a second end, and the second end having a surface configured to be advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 1-2); and a channel (where the stirring head 1 is located) extending from the first end to the second end along a central axis of the nosecone, the central axis of the channel defining an angle that is less than 90 degrees relative to a plane that is perpendicular to surfaces of the first work- piece and the second work-piece as the surface of the nosecone advances along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 1-2); and a screw (bottom part of stirring head 1) positioned within the channel (figures 2).
Meng does not specifically disclose that the first end of the nosecone is configured to couple the nosecone to a robotic arm. However, Mironets discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing device wherein a robotic arm is coupled to a nosecone at a first end (figures 1-2, paragraphs 0034-0035). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a robotic arm in order to move the friction stir device in multiple directions to allow for precise alignment of the tool with the workpieces being worked upon.
Regarding claim 15, Meng discloses a recess in the surface of the second end, the recess (the shape of the nosecone surface and opening are curved) configured to shape an outer profile of the weld line as the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 1-4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (CN115740727A) in view of Mironets et al. (20230039985A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wan et al. (CN112658460A).
Regarding claim 9, Meng does not disclose a slot comprising a passageway between a slot entrance in an outer sidewall of the nosecone and a slot exit in the channel of the nosecone. However, Wan discloses a slot 2 in a nosecone 1 of a friction stir welding additive manufacturing device. The slot 2 comprises a passageway between a slot entrance in an outer sidewall of the nosecone and a slot exit in the channel of the nosecone the slot (figures 1-2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a slot as taught by Wan so that material to be filled has enough time in the cavity of the nosecone. Furthermore, the slot 2 ensures that the additive layer will not overflow (see computer translation). The limitation “configured to receive a portion of structure positioned between the first work-piece and the second work-piece” is based on the material worked upon. Since Wan discloses a slot as currently claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim limitation is met.
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
Prosecution Insights