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 § 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) 1-4, 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (2016/0263696A1) in view of Mironets et al. (20230039985A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishida discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece comprising: a nosecone comprising: a sidewall extending from a first end to a second end (see figure below), the second end having a surface configured to be advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (see figure 1), the surface comprising a first planar surface in a first plane and a second planar surface in a second plane, the first plane being different than the second plane (see figure below, also see figures 1 and 5 for different perspectives) ; and a channel extending from the first end to the second end along a longitudinal axis of the nosecone; and a screw 21 positioned within the channel (see figure 1), 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 (see figure 1).
Nishida 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nishida 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 (figure 1). 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, Nishida 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 (figure 1). 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, Nishida 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 (figure 1). This is a process limitation and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, 15, Nishida discloses a curved recess (curved portion between 86 and 88 of figure 4)
The limitation “the curved recess 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” is based on the process and material worked upon. Based on the location of the recess along the weld line, it is the Examiner’s position that it is capable of shaping an outer profile of the weld line.
Regarding claim 7, Nishida discloses that the curved recess extends from a perimeter of the channel to an outer edge of the surface of the second end (figure 4)
Regarding claim 8, since the curved recess extends from one end to another end of 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 (figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Nishida discloses a slot 87 comprising 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 configured to receive a portion of a structure (wire) positioned between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Nishida 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 1). The workpieces are the material worked upon. The material worked upon does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Nishida shows that the screw penetrates the workpieces (figure 1). The workpieces are the material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since Nishida shows the screw penetrating the workpieces, it is the Examiner’s position that Nishida 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, Nishida discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece comprising: a nosecone comprising: a sidewall extending from a first end to a second end, the second end having a surface configured to be advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (see figure above), the surface comprising a first planar surface in a first plane and a second planar surface in a second plane, the first plane being different than the second plane (see figure above); and a channel extending from the first end to the second end along a central axis of the nosecone (see figure above), 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 (see figure 1); and a screw positioned within the channel (figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
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
Prosecution Insights