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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The original disclosure does not enable an artisan how to determine a bonding strength from roughness. Categorizing a bonding state in terms of quality (a normal bonding state, an insufficient bonding state, and an over-bonding state) does not constitute determining a bonding strength. Thus, determining a bonding strength using a ratio of bonding depth to roughness is not enabled by the original disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In independent claims 1, 8, and 19 it is unclear what the applicant means by “bonding strength”. The original disclosure does not describe calculating and/or determining an actual bonding strength. The disclosure discusses determining a normal bonding state, an insufficient bonding state, and an over-bonding state, but these classifications do not constitute a bonding strength. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
In claim 1, lines 4-5 it is unclear how the bonding strength is “based” on roughness.
In claim 2, lines 2-3 it is unclear what the applicant means by “a thickness of the base metal based on the roughness”, specifically what “based on” means in context of determining the ratio. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
In claim 8, line 9 it is unclear how the bonding strength is “based” on roughness.
In claim 9, lines 2-3 it is unclear what the applicant means by “a thickness of the base metal based on the roughness”, specifically what “based on” means in context of determining the ratio. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
In claim 19, line 9 it is unclear how the bonding strength is “based” on roughness.
In claim 20, line 3 it is unclear what the applicant means by “a thickness of the base metal based on the roughness”, specifically what “based on” means in context of determining the ratio. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. “Real-time welding condition monitoring by roughness information extracted from surface images” (here after Wang).
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches a bonding strength inspection apparatus comprising: a roughness measurement part (optical contour scanner Model number: Wyko NT9100) configured to measure a roughness of a bonding part in which a base metal and a bonding member are bonded (friction stir welded) to each other (Experimental Procedure 1.1; Figure 2a; and Table 4); and a processor (device that runs the MATLAB software and calculates/monitors in real-time) configured to determine a bonding strength of the bonding part based on the roughness (experimental procedure 1.1; 2. Methods; Figures 2a, 4, and 5c; and Table 4).
With respect to claim 8, Wang teaches a bonding system comprising: a bonding apparatus configured to bond (friction stir weld) a bonding member to a base metal; and a bonding strength inspection (monitoring) apparatus configured to determine a bonding strength of a bonding part in which the base metal and the bonding member are bonded to each other, wherein the bonding strength inspection apparatus comprises a roughness measurement part (optical contour scanner Model number: Wyko NT9100) measuring a roughness of the bonding part, and a processor (device that runs the MATLAB software and calculates/monitors in real-time) configured to determine the bonding strength based on the roughness (experimental procedure 1.1; 2. Methods; Figures 2a, 4, and 5c; and Table 4).
With respect to claim 15, the material worked upon does not limit the structure of the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2115). Furthermore, the frictional heat of stirring process would intrinsically generate heat at a second surface.
With respect to claim 16, Wang teaches wherein the roughness measurement part (optical contour scanner Model number: Wyko NT9100) is configured to measure the roughness on the second surface (figures 1-7).
With respect to claim 17, Wang teaches wherein the bonding apparatus is configured to bond the base metal and the bonding member via friction welding (friction stir welding).
With respect to claim 18, Wang teaches wherein the bonding apparatus is configured to control output power (adjusting traverse or rotary speed intrinsically requires control of output power) for bonding the base metal and the bonding member based on the bonding strength (1. Introduction; 3. Results and discussion; and 4. Conclusion).
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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Wang teaches using an average roughness (Ra) of the bonding part (Nomenclature Table; Experimental Procedure 1.1; and Table 4), but does not explicitly teach a ten-point average roughness (Rz).
However, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize at least a ten-point average roughness in the process of Wang in order to ensure that the average roughness sample is a large enough to provide an accurate representation of the average roughness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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