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 1-17, and specie 1D, 2E, and 3G 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nishida et al. (2016/0263696A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishida discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece, the device comprising: a nosecone (figure 4-5) comprising a channel (shown below) extending along a central axis of the nosecone to a first end of the nosecone and a curved recess (shown below) extending from a perimeter of the channel; a screw 21 (figure 2, 4) configured to rotate within the channel; and a slot 87 comprising a passageway between a slot entrance (shown below) in an outer sidewall of the nosecone and a slot exit (shown below) in the channel of the nosecone, the slot configured to receive a portion of a structure (wire 50) positioned between the first work-piece and the second work-piece at the slot entrance and through the slot exit toward the screw as the nosecone advances across a top surface of the first work-piece and a top surface of the second work-piece (figures 2-5, 10, paragraphs 0037-0051).
The first and second work-pieces are material worked upon and do not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
360
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the structure is material worked upon and does not further limit the apparatus. The wire 50 of Nishida can be considered a stiffener.
Regarding claim 3, Nishida discloses that the first end of the nosecone comprises a first surface angled (see below). The limitation “relative to the first work-piece and the second work-piece when the central axis of the nosecone is oriented perpendicular to surfaces of the first work-piece and the second work-piece” is dependent on material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. With that being said, Nishida does show a flat/horizontal workpiece in figure 10.
PNG
media_image3.png
222
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Nishida discloses that the first end of the nosecone comprises a second surface 86 (show below). The limitation “parallel to the first work-piece and the second work-piece when the central axis of the nosecone is oriented perpendicular to surfaces of the first work-piece and the second work- piece” is dependent on material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. With that being said, Nishida does show a flat/horizontal workpiece in figure 10.
PNG
media_image4.png
465
517
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Nishida discloses that a portion of the curved recess is formed in the second surface (see figures above).
Regarding claim 6, Nishida discloses that a portion of the curved recess is formed in the first surface (see figures above).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the slot is configured to reduce motion of the nosecone perpendicular to a direction the nosecone advances along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece” is functional and does not further provide structure to the apparatus. With that being said, the slot does provide motion of the nosecone perpendicular to the direction of the nosecone advances along a weld line when the wire is in the slot. The nosecone would not be able to move in a vertical direction (perpendicular to advancement of nosecone along weld line).
Regarding claim 11, Nishida discloses a friction stir additive welding device configured to join a first work-piece and a second work-piece comprising: a nosecone (show above in figure 1); a channel extending along a central axis of the nosecone (shown above in figure 1), the channel configured to receive a rotating screw 21; and a slot 87 comprising a first opening in an outer sidewall of the nosecone (shown above in figure 1), a second opening in a wall of the channel of the nosecone (shown above in figure 1), and a passageway through the nosecone between the first opening and the second opening, the slot 87 configured to receive a portion of a structure (wire 50) positioned between the first work-piece and the second work-piece (figures 2-5, 10, paragraphs 0037-0051).
Regarding claim 12, Nishida discloses a first end of the nosecone comprises a surface angled relative to the first work-piece and the second work-piece when the central axis of the channel is oriented perpendicular to surfaces of the first work-piece and the second work-piece (see rejection and figure of claim 3).
Regarding claim 15, Nishida discloses a first end of the nosecone comprises a curved recess (see figure above for claim 1). The limitation “configured to shape an outer profile of a weld line as the nosecone is advanced along the weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece”. Is functional and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since Nishida discloses a curved recess as currently claimed, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the slot is configured to reduce motion of the nosecone perpendicular to a direction the nosecone advances as the nosecone is advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece” is functional and does not further provide structure to the apparatus. With that being said, the slot does provide motion of the nosecone perpendicular to the direction of the nosecone advances along a weld line when the wire is in the slot. The nosecone would not be able to move in a vertical direction (perpendicular to advancement of nosecone along weld line).
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) 7-8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (2016/0263696A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Miller (6,667,625).
Regarding claim 7, Nishida does not disclose that the slot comprises a width that decreases as the slot extends between the slot entrance in the outer sidewall of the nosecone and the slot exit in the channel of the nosecone. However, Miller discloses a slot for a wire wherein the slot decreases from the entrance 38 to the exit (where 36 is pointing) (figure 3, column 9 lines 23-45). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the entrance be larger to allow for easier insertion of the wire into the tool (column 9 lines 23-45). It would have been obvious for the exit to be smaller as it allows the wire to be placed in the desired location without movement or misalignment. While the Examiner acknowledges that this slot is a different configuration and not used for friction stir, one skilled in the art would acknowledge that the reasoning for the shape opening and exit of the slot would also be relevant.
Regarding claim 8, Nishida discloses that the slot comprises a first portion and a second portion. Nishida does not disclose that the first portion having a narrowing width and the second portion having a constant width. However, Miller discloses a slot for a wire wherein the slot has a narrowing width from the entrance 38 to toward the exit and then a constant width (where 36 is pointing) (figure 3, column 9 lines 23-45). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the entrance be larger and then narrowing to allow for easier insertion of the wire into the tool (column 9 lines 23-45). It would have been obvious for the exit to be constant as it allows the wire to be placed in the desired location without movement or misalignment. While the Examiner acknowledges that this slot is a different configuration and not used for friction stir, one skilled in the art would acknowledge that the reasoning for the shape opening and exit of the slot would also be relevant.
Regarding claim 13, Nishida does not disclose a width of the passageway decreases between the first opening and the second opening. However, Miller discloses a slot for a wire wherein the slot decreases from the entrance 38 to the exit (where 36 is pointing) (figure 3, column 9 lines 23-45). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the entrance be larger to allow for easier insertion of the wire into the tool (column 9 lines 23-45). It would have been obvious for the exit to be smaller as it allows the wire to be placed in the desired location without movement or misalignment. While the Examiner acknowledges that this slot is a different configuration and not used for friction stir, one skilled in the art would acknowledge that the reasoning for the shape opening and exit of the slot would also be relevant.
Regarding claim 14, Nishida does not disclose that the passageway comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion having a narrowing width and the second portion having a constant width. However, Miller discloses a slot for a wire wherein the slot decreases from the entrance 38 to the exit (where 36 is pointing) (figure 3, column 9 lines 23-45). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the entrance be larger to allow for easier insertion of the wire into the tool (column 9 lines 23-45). It would have been obvious for the exit to be smaller as it allows the wire to be placed in the desired location without movement or misalignment. While the Examiner acknowledges that this slot is a different configuration and not used for friction stir, one skilled in the art would acknowledge that the reasoning for the shape opening and exit of the slot would also be relevant.
Claim(s) 10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida et al. (2016/0263696A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Burford (2016/0008918A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nishida discloses a screw with a thread, but does not specifically disclose that the screw comprises a plurality of threads. However, Burford discloses a friction stir tool with a probe/tool that includes multiple threads (figure 16, paragraph 0096). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have multiple threads as Burford discloses that the multiple threads results in the weld material traveling at a greater average speed toward the distal end of the probe and limits flaws during the welding process (paragraph 0096). Since Burford discloses a plurality of threads it is the Examiner’s position that the threads are configured to break apart and plasticize the portion of the structure as the nosecone is advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece.
Regarding claim 17, Nishida discloses a rotating screw 21 with a thread (figure 2-3). Nishida does not specifically disclose that the rotating screw comprising a plurality of threads that are configured to break apart and plasticize the portion of the structure as the nosecone is advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece. However, Burford discloses a friction stir tool with a probe/tool that includes multiple threads (figure 16, paragraph 0096). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have multiple threads as Burford discloses that the multiple threads results in the weld material traveling at a greater average speed toward the distal end of the probe and limits flaws during the welding process (paragraph 0096). Since Burford discloses a plurality of threads it is the Examiner’s position that the threads are configured to break apart and plasticize the portion of the structure as the nosecone is advanced along a weld line between the first work-piece and the second work-piece.
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