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.
Claims 1, 6, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori et al. (JP 2018-199142-A, see attached document) in view of Reynolds (Effects of tool geometric features on friction stir weld response parameters, Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, 2018, vol. 23, no. 7, pg. 575-584, NPL of record) & Thomas et al. (FSW Process Variants and Mechanical Properties, Weld World, issue 49, 2005 pg. 4–11, of record), and further in view of Gandra (KR 2019-0077420-A, see attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses a method for manufacturing a joined body by performing friction stir welding on a joined member 1-2 (figs. 2-8) while using a rotating tool F including a stirring pin F2 in which a helical groove is formed (fig. 1), the method comprising, in the following order: an insertion step of inserting the stirring pin into the joined member 1-2 in a state where the rotating tool is rotated using the helical groove pin F2 (figs. 3-4); a change step of changing a rotation direction of the rotating tool as appropriately necessary so that the burrs are generated on surplus side [0039]; and a joining step of joining the joined member 1-2 with the rotating tool F (figs. 7-8).
With respect to tool rotation direction and helical groove direction, Hori teaches that tool design changes are within the spirit of his invention- this include changing rotational speed, rotation direction as well as the traveling direction of the tool F [0039]. Reynolds (NPL) is directed to investigating pin geometries effects on material flow in FSW (abstract) and teaches that both right-handed threaded pin and left-handed threaded pin orientations are known, leading to downward or upward material movement, respectively (pg. 575- Introduction- right column). Reynolds discloses several variations of tool rotation direction with respect to pin thread directions and summarizes the results relating to weld quality defects (Table 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select helical groove of either right-handed thread or left-handed thread in the tool of Hori with a motivation to achieve desired material movement during the insertion step. Similarly, Thomas (NPL) is drawn to FSW process variants (title) and discloses techniques to improve mechanical properties (pg. 4- Introduction). As one variation, Thomas teaches rotary reversal motion (also known as Re-stirTM) in which tool rotation direction is reversed after one or more revolutions and the results show very good fatigue performance (pg. 6- Section 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to change the rotation direction of the rotating tool to opposite direction to the helical groove direction for the joining step in the method of Hori because doing so would result in targeted mechanical properties, such as very good fatigue performance as suggested by Thomas. Hence, FSW method of Hori as modified by teachings of Reynolds & Thomas discloses rotating the tool in the same direction as a direction of the helical groove during the insertion step and changing to reverse direction in an opposite direction to the helical groove direction for the joining step.
Hori does not mention discharging or removing a part of the material to an outside while rotating the tool in the insertion step. Gandra (also directed to friction stir welding) discloses a tool having a shoulder 3 and a pin/probe 2, wherein the pin 2 includes helical grooves 26 (fig. 5). Gandra teaches the shoulder 3 having discharge ports 4 which discharges material 21 to the outside while the pin/probe is inserted and rotated into the workpiece 33 and forming channel 35 in the workpiece 33 (see fig. 5, [0038]). Gandra teaches it has been known in prior art to remove the excess material to keep the surface flat, reducing the need for post-process finishing, wherein displacement of material is caused by the geometric features of the rotating tool, which includes a scrolled shoulder and a threaded probe that rotate together [0004]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide at least one discharge port to the rotating tool of Hori with a motivation to remove excess material while rotating the stirring pin in the insertion step in order to provide clean, flat surface in the joined member and avoid the need for subsequent post-process finishing, as suggested by Gandra.
Thus, combination of Hori, Reynolds, Thomas and Gandra discloses recited method of friction stir joining steps, rendering the claim obvious.
As to claim 6, Hori discloses the method further comprising a press-in step of pressing the rotating tool in a depth direction after the change step, wherein the joining step is performed after the press-in step (figs. 7-8).
As to claim 11, Hori shows that the rotating tool includes a base portion F1 with a column shape, the stirring pin F2 extends downward from a lower end surface of the base portion F1 (fig. 1), and the friction stir welding is performed on the joined member in a state where the base portion is separated from the joined member and only the stirring pin is inserted into the joined member (fig. 4).
As to claim 15, Hori discloses that the joined member includes a first joined member 1 and a second joined member 2, a back surface of the second joined member is laid over a front surface of the first joined member to form an overlaying portion, and the stirring pin is inserted toward the overlaying portion in the insertion step (figs. 4, 7).
As to claim 16, Gandra discloses a grooved/threaded stirring pin which functions as a drill to cut through at least portion of the workpiece and discharge excess material to the outside of the tool by discharge ports (fig. 5, [0038]). Accordingly, Hori as modified by Gandra in clam 1 above encompasses recited discharging feature and renders the claim obvious.
Claims 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Reynolds and Thomas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2021/0268599, hereafter “Seo”).
As to claims 2-3, Hori does not mention number of revolutions of the rotating tool in the insertion step being equal to or higher than a number of revolutions of the rotating tool in the joining step. However, such feature is known in the art. Analogous to Hori, Seo (drawn to friction stir welding) teaches inserting rotary tool F for joining members 1-2 (figs. 5-6), wherein the stirring pin is rotated at a higher speed V1 during the insertion step (fig. 6) than a rotational speed V2 preset for the moving track L1 (fig. 7) along the joining interface ([0015, 0102]; claim 41). One of ordinary skill would readily recognize that higher rotation speed V1 would be less than double of V2- number of revolutions (N1) of the rotating tool in the insertion step being less than double the number of revolutions in the joining step (N2) would be suitable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a claimed higher rotation speed of the tool during the insertion step in the FSW method of Hori with a motivation to ensure sufficient penetration while inserting into the joining interface.
As to claim 14, Hori discloses that the joined member includes a first joined member 1 and a second joined member 2, a back surface of the second joined member is laid over a front surface of the first joined member to form an overlaying portion, and the stirring pin is inserted toward the overlaying portion in the insertion step (figs. 4, 7). Hori does not mention a second joined member with a lower hardness than the first joined member. However, Seo teaches forming a liquid-cooling sealed jacket body, wherein the second aluminum member body 3 has a lower hardness than a first aluminum alloy jacket 2 [0067], the members 2-3 being friction stir joined by inserting a rotating tool F (fig. 6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a second member having a lower hardness in the FSW method of Hori for the purpose of fabricating a target assembly such as liquid-cooling jacket body, as suggested by Seo.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Reynolds and Thomas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (US 2020/0164462, hereafter “Hori ‘462”).
As to claim 9, Hori discloses that the rotating tool further includes a shoulder portion F1 that is provided with a lower end surface with a flat shape and that has a column shape, the stirring pin F2 extends downward from the lower end surface of the shoulder portion F1 (fig. 1), but is silent concerning the shoulder portion brought into contact with the joined member. However, such technique is known in the FSW art. Hori ‘462 discloses a FSW joining rotary tool G with a shoulder portion G1 and stirring pin G2 (having a spiral groove G3) extending downward from the shoulder portion (fig. 4). Specifically, Hori ‘462 teaches that friction stir welding is performed in a state where the shoulder portion G1 is brought into contact with the joined member and the stirring pin G2 is inserted into the joined member (fig. 5), wherein the shoulder portion presses the plasticized material and a concave lower end surface of the shoulder portion prevents fluidized metal from flowing to the outside [0092]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the rotating tool in Hori with a contacting shoulder portion similar to Hori ‘462 with a motivation to enhance mixing and improve flow control of the plasticized material as taught by Hori ‘462.
As to claim 10, Hori shows that an insertion depth of the rotating tool F is approximately half a length of the stirring pin L (fig. 4).
Claims 7-8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Reynolds & Thomas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (US 2021/0053144, “Hori ‘144”) & Hori et al. (US 10668559, “Hori ‘559”)
As to claims 7-8 and 10, Hori is silent as to specific insertion depth of the pin. However, adjusting insertion depth during friction stir welding is known in the art. Analogous to Hori, both Hori ‘144 & Hori ‘559 are disclosures directed to friction stir welding with a rotary tool inserted into the joining members. Hori ‘144 teaches that insertion depth of the stirring pin of rotary tool Is adjusted in accordance with the deformation amount of workpiece material in the joining process, which is measured in advance [0021, 0079, 0125]. Similarly, Hori ‘559 teaches that the insertion depth of the stirring pin of the rotary tool is set as appropriate and set to allow plasticized regions to reach each abutment portions (col. 7, lines 50-59; col. 11, lines 41-50; col. 26, lines 35-44; figs. 4-5, 16, 26). Given teachings of Hori ‘144 & Hori ‘559, the pin insertion depth is variable for achieving art-recognized results of desired deformation amount and plasticized regions in FSW, and thus is result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose the instantly recited pin insertion depth through process optimization in the method of Hori, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II).
As to claim 12, Hori ‘144 teaches a rotating tool F that includes a base portion with a column shape, the stirring pin F3 includes a base-end-side pin F2 continuous with the base portion and a distal-end-side pin F3 continuous with the base-end-side pin, a taper angle A of the base-end-side pin is larger than a taper angle B of the distal-end-side pin (fig. 1), and a pin step portion with a step shape is formed on an outer peripheral surface of the base-end-side pin (figs. 2-5, [0066-0068]), and the friction stir welding on the joined member is performed in a state where the outer peripheral surface of the base-end-side pin is in contact with a front surface of the joined member (figs. 12, 15-17). Hori ‘144 teaches that such step configuration of the rotary tool enables to have the plastically flowing material come out of the pin portion without being stuck or adhering to the pin [0066]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the rotary tool pin configuration of Hori ‘144 in the FSW method of Hori because it would enable to have the plastically flowing material come out of the pin portion without being stuck or adhering to the pin.
As to claim 13, Hori ‘559 discloses the method for manufacturing the joined body, further comprising a prepared hole forming step of forming a prepared hole 11 in the joined member before the insertion step (fig. 2), wherein the stirring pin F3 is inserted into the prepared hole in the insertion step (figs. 4-5). The hole 11 is of hollow column section and formed corresponding to position of the projecting part 10 of the joining metal plate member to form a T-shaped assembly (figs. 2-3, col. 7, lines 1-10). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a hole in one joined member before the insertion step in the FSW method of Hori for the purpose of assembling desired joint such as T-shaped component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and new claim 16 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above, which now includes new reference of Gandra and addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights