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, Species I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 1/5/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama et al. (JP-2018157082A) (hereafter Koyama).
With respect to claim 1, Koyama teaches an ultrasonic welding device comprising: a horn (22) configured to press a first member (8) to ultrasonically weld the first member (8) and a second member (5), wherein the horn includes a knurling portion having a plurality of protrusions (22b) configured to protrude toward the first member to create a concavo-convex shape on the first member, and wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a length m in a direction toward the first member, the length m being greater than or equal to a thickness d (T) of the first member (paragraphs 59-62; and figure 9).
With respect to claim 2, Koyama teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions are regularly provided at regular intervals n (paragraphs 59-62; and figure 9).
With respect to claim 3, Koyama teaches each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to have a narrower cross-sectional area in the direction toward the first member (paragraphs 59-62; and figure 9).
With respect to claim 4, Koyama teaches wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is inclined to have a certain angle θ with respect to the first member (paragraphs 59-62; and figure 9).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN-112222596A) (hereafter Chen).
With respect to claim 1, Chen teaches an ultrasonic welding device comprising: a horn (ultrasonic welding head 2) configured to press a first member to ultrasonically weld the first member and a second member (workpieces), wherein the horn includes a knurling portion having a plurality of protrusions (teeth 1) configured to protrude toward the first member to create a concavo-convex shape on the first member, and wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a length m in a direction toward the first member (figure 1; and the machine translation). Note the explicit teaching that the welding teeth are processed by milling machine inclined 30-45 degrees; the tooth depth is 0.48mm-0.55mm, and the tooth distance is 1.2mm-1.5mm.
Section 2115 of the MPEP is clear that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Accordingly, the language of “the length m being greater than or equal to a thickness d (T) of the first member” does not positively limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that an apparatus having a tool depth of 0.48mm-0.55mm is intrinsically capable of bonding a film with a thickness less than or equal to 0.48mm.
With respect to claim 2, Chen teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions are regularly provided at regular intervals n (figure 1; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 3, Chen teaches each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to have a narrower cross-sectional area in the direction toward the first member (figure 1; and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 4, Chen teaches wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is inclined to have a certain angle θ with respect to the first member (figure 1; and the machine translation).
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US2021/0129453A1) (hereafter Wang).
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches an ultrasonic welding device comprising: a horn (10) configured to press a first member to ultrasonically weld the first member and a second member (first and second workpieces), wherein the horn includes a knurling portion having a plurality of protrusions (knurls 20) configured to protrude toward the first member to create a concavo-convex shape on the first member, and wherein each of the plurality of protrusions has a length m in a direction toward the first member (figures 1 and 3; and paragraph 29, particularly the explicit teaching of knurl pitch d may be provided in the range of 0.75 to 1.25 millimeters, the knurl angle θ may be provided in the range of 30 to 60 degrees).
Section 2115 of the MPEP is clear that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. Accordingly, the language of “the length m being greater than or equal to a thickness d (T) of the first member” does not positively limit the structure of the claimed apparatus. Furthermore, it is the examiner’s position that the apparatus of Wang is capable of bonding a foil having a thickness less than the height of the teeth.
With respect to claim 2, Wang teaches wherein the plurality of protrusions are regularly provided at regular intervals n (figures 1 and 3; and paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 3, Wang teaches each of the plurality of protrusions is configured to have a narrower cross-sectional area in the direction toward the first member (figures 1 and 3; and paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 4, Wang teaches wherein each of the plurality of protrusions is inclined to have a certain angle θ with respect to the first member (figures 1 and 3; and paragraph 29).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
With respect to claim 5, Chen teaches wherein the length m (0.48-0.55mm) satisfies the following Equation 1: m=|tan θ|×n/2 (machine translation, particularly angles of 33-36º with a spacing of 1.5mm).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
With respect to claim 5, Wang teaches wherein the length m (0.649-1.08mm) satisfies the following Equation 1: m=|tan θ|×n/2 (paragraph 29, particularly an angle of 60º with a spacing of 0.75-1.25mm fulfills the equation). Note that the height of the teeth calculates to 0.649-1.08mm when the pitch d is set between 0.75-1.25mm.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Chen or Wang.
With respect to claim 5, Koyama does not explicitly teach wherein the length m (0.649-1.08mm) satisfies the following Equation 1: m=|tan θ|×n/2. However, Chen or Wang teach the claimed relationship as set forth above.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the claimed height, angle, and interval as taught by Chen or Wang on the ultrasonic horn of Koyama in order to obtain the desired grip and penetration for obtaining a strong ultrasonic weld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735