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 § 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)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US 2012/0298724) (hereafter Kato).
With respect to claim 1, Kato teaches a friction stir welding tool that welds welding target materials to each other (title; and figures) the friction stir welding tool comprising: a shank (31) coaxially connected to a rotating member (10/20); a first spiral portion (32) integrally formed with the shank, and having a first spiral surface (32/33) extending in a spiral shape around an axis extending coaxially with the rotating member so as to approach the axis as being separated from the shank in an axial direction (figures 1-5); a second spiral portion (35) integrally formed with the first spiral portion, and having a second spiral surface (35/36) extending in a spiral shape in a direction opposite to the first spiral surface around the axis so as to be separated from the axis as being separated from the first spiral portion in the axial direction on a side opposite to a shank side (figures 1-5); and a heat receiving portion (34) integrally extending from the second spiral portion on a side opposite to a first spiral portion side and configured to receive heat from the second spiral portion (figures 1-5; and paragraphs 42-84).
With respect to claim 2, Kato teaches a non-spiral portion (37) integrally extending from an end portion of the first spiral portion on the side opposite to the shank side, wherein the second spiral portion integrally extends from an end portion of the non-spiral portion on a side opposite to the first spiral portion side (figures 1-5; and paragraphs 42-84).
With respect to claim 3, Kato teaches wherein a volume of the heat receiving (34) portion is at least larger than a volume of the second spiral portion (35) (figures 2-4).
With respect to claim 4, Kato teaches wherein a volume of the heat receiving (34) portion is at least larger than a volume of the second spiral portion (35) (figures 2-4).
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (WO 2013/076472A1) in view of Kato et al. (US 2012/0298724) (hereafter Kato).
With respect to claim 1, Martin teaches a friction stir welding tool that welds welding target materials to each other (title; and figures) the friction stir welding tool comprising: a shank (3) coaxially connected to a rotating member (10/20); a first spiral portion (2b) integrally formed with the shank, and having a first spiral surface extending in a spiral shape around an axis extending coaxially with the rotating member so as to approach the axis as being separated from the shank in an axial direction (figures 2-3; page 7, lines 27-35; and page 11, line 23-page 12, line 21; and page 13, lines 12-31); a second spiral portion (1b) formed with the first spiral portion, and having a second spiral surface extending in a spiral shape in a direction opposite to the first spiral surface around the axis so as to be separated from the axis as being separated from the first spiral portion in the axial direction on a side opposite to a shank side (figures 2-3; page 7, lines 27-35; page 11, line 23-page 12, line 21; and page 13, lines 12-31); and a heat receiving portion (1a) extending from the second spiral portion on a side opposite to a first spiral portion side and configured to receive heat from the second spiral portion (figures 2-3; and page 13, lines 12-31).
With respect to claim 1, Martin does not teach that the second spiral portion is integrally formed with the first spiral portion and a heat receiving portion integrally extending from the second spiral portion.
However, Kato teaches a second spiral portion (35) integrally formed with the first spiral portion and a heat receiving portion (34) integrally extending from the second spiral portion (figures 1-5; and paragraphs 42-84).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to make the bobbin tool of Martin integral as taught by Kato in order to reduce the number of components. Note that the court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
With respect to claim 3, Kato teaches wherein a volume of the heat receiving (34) portion is at least larger than a volume of the second spiral portion (35) (figures 2-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 and any intervening claims.
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
Prosecution Insights