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, 5-10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threadgill et al. (Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum Alloys, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and ASM International, Vol 54, 2009) in view of Boon et al. (6,325,273).
Regarding claim 1, Threadgill discloses a friction stir additive welding screw comprising: a first portion (opposite pin that attaches to a tool) configured to be coupled to a friction stir additive welding device; and a second portion (figure 2c, page 51) configured to penetrate a work-piece, the second portion comprising: a first plurality of threads, each thread of the first plurality of threads twisting about a central axis of the friction stir additive welding screw; a second plurality of threads positioned along an edge of each thread of the first plurality of threads (figure 2c, page 51).
Threadgill does not disclose a plurality of teeth at a tip of the second portion. However, Boon discloses a friction stir welding probe/second portion 3 with a plurality of teeth/protrusions 2 on the tip of the probe/second portion (figures 1, 5). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have teeth/protrusions on the tip of the second portion (probe) to help mix the plasticized material to form a joint with optimal strength and appearance (column 3 lines 25-52).
The term “additive welding” is intended use and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Threadgill discloses a smooth surface positioned between adjacent edges of the first plurality of threads (figure 2c, page 51).
Regarding claim 6, with the teeth of Boon, the tip of the second portion would not be flat.
Regarding claim 7, since Threadgill discloses the plurality of second threads as structurally claimed it is the Examiner’s position that they are configured to cut and break material into smaller pieces of material.
Regarding claim 8, since Threadgill discloses the plurality of first threads as structurally claimed it is the Examiner’s position that they are configured to compress the smaller pieces of material and move the compressed smaller pieces toward the tip.
Regarding claim 9, since Boon discloses the plurality of teeth as structurally claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that they are configured to plasticize and compress material along a weld line.
Regarding claim 10, since Boon discloses the plurality of teeth as structurally claimed, it is the Examiner’s position that the plurality of teeth are configured to move plasticized material toward a weld line.
Regarding claim 12, Threadgill discloses each thread of the second plurality of threads comprises a sharp edge (figure 2c).
Regarding claim 13, Threadgill discloses that the second plurality of threads are recessed into surfaces of the first plurality of threads (figure 2c).
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Threadgill et al. (Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum Alloys, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and ASM International, Vol 54, 2009) in view of Boon et al. (6,325,273) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stol et al. (2008/0217377A1).
Regarding claim 2, Threadgill does not specifically disclose that the second plurality of threads extend perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the friction stir additive welding screw. However, Stoll discloses a friction stir pin with first and second threads where in the second threads can be left-hand, right-hand, or horizontal (paragraph 0015). It is known in the art to have horizontal threads (perpendicular to the longitudinal axis). There are limited possibilities for the direction of the threads. Picking a known direction, such as horizontal is not novel. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to determine the ideal direction of the threads and based on the desired process being used.
Regarding claim 4, Threadgill does not specifically state that each thread of the second plurality of threads has a triangular shape. However, Stol discloses a friction stir pin wherein each thread of the plurality of second threads 32 has a generally triangular shape (figure 1j). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use threads with a triangular shape because the sharp point of the thread would mix the plasticized material during the rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5-10, 12-13 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