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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 4683368) in view of Holloway (US-9048005).
Regarding claim 1, Das teaches a tubular welding electrode comprising: a metallic sheath (320) surrounding a granular core (340), but is silent on wherein the metallic sheath comprises a metal matrix composite (MMC) that comprises: a ceramic material: and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Holloway teaches wherein the metallic sheath (Col. 6 lines 55-60 continuous cylinder or wire [48]) comprises a metal matrix composite (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have a sheath comprising a metal matrix composite comprising ceramic and aluminum or an aluminum alloy in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 2, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but Das is silent on wherein the ceramic material comprises up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic sheath.
Holloway teaches the ceramic material(Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic material in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Holloway does not teach the ceramic material comprises up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic sheath. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the ceramic material comprise up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic, sheath since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Das teaches the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2).
Holloway teaches wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2) (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic include alumina in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 4, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but Das is silent on wherein the ceramic material is in the form of microparticles
Holloway teaches wherein the ceramic material is in the form of microparticles (Col. 6 lines 10-15 Alumina particles Smaller than 10 microns in diameter).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic include microparticles in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (JPH05305439) in view of Holloway (US-9048005) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 10, Kamimura discloses a method for producing a tubular welding electrode comprising: b. forming the strip into a “U” shape ([0019] A thin plate 5 is bent into a U shape); c. filling the “U” shape of the strip with a granular flux ([0019] the triple capsule particles 4 are placed on the thin plate 5 and then formed into a tubular shape); and d. mechanically closing the “U” shape to form a sheath of MMC that surrounds a granular flux core, thus forming a tubular welding electrode ([0019] seam portion 6 of thin plate 5 being formed into a tubular shape, forming a wire), but is silent on producing a strip of a metal matrix composite (MMC) that comprises a ceramic material and aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Holloway teaches producing a strip of a metal matrix composite (MMC) that comprises a ceramic material and aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have a sheath comprising a metal matrix composite comprising ceramic and aluminum or an aluminum alloy in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 11, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 10, and Kamimura teaches wherein the mechanical closing involves forming a butt or overlap seam ([0019] seam portion 6).
Regarding claim 12, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 10, and Kamimura teaches further comprising a step e) of drawing the tubular welding electrode to a desired diameter ([0018] the wire is drawn to a diameter of about 0.8 to 1.6 mm).
Regarding claim 13, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 10, Kamimura is silent on wherein the ceramic material comprises up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic sheath.
Holloway teaches the ceramic material(Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic material in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Holloway does not teach the ceramic material comprises up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic sheath. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the ceramic material comprise up to 20% by weight percent of the metallic, sheath since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 10, but Kamimura is silent on wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2).
Holloway teaches wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2) (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic include alumina in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 16, Kamimura teaches a method for producing a tubular welding electrode comprising: b. forming the billet into a hollow tube shape to form a sheath ([0019] thin plate 5 being formed into a tubular shape, being the sheath); and c. filling the tube shape with a granular flux to form a tubular welding electrode that has a sheath of MMC surrounding a granular flux core ([0019] the triple capsule particles 4 are placed on the thin plate 5 and then formed into a tubular shape), but is silent on a. producing a billet of a metal matrix composite (MMC) that comprises a ceramic material and aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Holloway teaches producing a billet of a metal matrix composite (MMC) that comprises a ceramic material and aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have a sheath comprising a metal matrix composite comprising ceramic and aluminum or an aluminum alloy in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Regarding claim 17, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 16, and Kamimura teaches wherein the forming step comprises extruding the billet into a hollow tube shape to form a sheath ([0019] thin plate 5 being formed into a tubular shape).
Regarding claim 18, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 16, and Kamimura teaches further comprising a step d) of drawing the tubular welding electrode to a desired diameter ([0018] the wire is drawn to a diameter of about 0.8 to 1.6 mm).
Regarding claim 19, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 16, but Kamimura is silent on wherein the ceramic material comprises up to 10% by weight percent of the metallic sheath.
Holloway teaches the ceramic material(Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic material in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Holloway does not teach the ceramic material comprises up to 10% by weight percent of the metallic sheath. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have the ceramic material comprise up to 10% by weight percent of the metallic, sheath since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 16, but Kamimura is silent on wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2) .
Holloway teaches wherein the ceramic material is chosen from the group consisting of: alumina (Al2O3), boron carbide (B4C), carbon nanotubes (CNT), titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon carbide (SiC), tungsten carbide (WC), silicon nitride (Si3N4), aluminum nitride (AlN), titanium carbide (TiC), or silica (SiO2) (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic matrix composite (TA-IMC)) that comprises a ceramic material and an aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Col. 5 lines 15-30 titanium aluminide intermetallic composite (TA-IMC) of the present invention comprises in situ formed particles of alumina (Al2O3)).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura to incorporate the teachings of Holloway to have the ceramic include alumina in order to produce a wire with high ductility, and excellent transverse properties (Holloway Col. 1 lines 15-45).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 4683368) and Holloway (US-9048005) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yahata (US10960497).
Regarding claim 5, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the ceramic material is in the form of nanoparticles.
However, Yahata teaches wherein the ceramic material is in the form of nanoparticles (Col. 15 lines 5-10 In some embodiments, the powder particles are ceramic and the nanoparticles and/or microparticles are ceramic).
Das, Holloway, and Yahata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires and the like. It would have been obvious to have modified Das and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Yahata to have the ceramic material be in form of nanoparticle in order to control the solidification of a portion of the powdered materials (Yahata Col. 14 lines 60-66).
Regarding claim 7, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the granular core is a granular powder flux fill core.
However, Yahata teaches wherein the granular core is a granular powder flux fill core (Col. 9 lines 20-25 welding filler material provided with flux; lines 40-45 filler being a powder).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Yahata to have the granular core be a granular powder flux fill core in order to protect the weld area from oxidation and contamination by producing carbon dioxide gas during the weld process (Yahata Col. 9 lines 20-25).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 4683368) and Holloway (US-9048005) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lin (US20170120393).
Regarding claim 6, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the MMC comprises a 4xxx series or a 5xxx series aluminum alloy.
However, Lin teaches wherein the MMC comprises a 4xxx series or a 5xxx series aluminum alloy ([0057] the tube itself may comprise aluminum or an aluminum alloy (e.g., a suitable 1xxx-8xxx aluminum alloy).
Das, Holloway, and Lin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires and the like. It would have been obvious to have modified Das and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Lin to have the MMC comprise a 4xxx series or a 5xxx series aluminum alloy in order to aid in additive manufacturing techniques such as binder jetting, directed energy deposition, material extrusion, material jetting, powder bed fusion, or sheet lamination (Lin [0014]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 4683368) and Holloway (US-9048005) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Berube (US10850356).
Regarding claim 8, Das and Holloway the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the granular core is a granular metal core.
However, Berube teaches wherein the granular core is a granular metal core (Col. 2 lines 60-66 a granular core disposed within the metallic sheath with metallic alloying powders).
Das, Holloway, and Berube are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wires and the like. It would have been obvious to have modified Das and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Berube to have the granular core be a granular metal core in order to provide a metal-cored aluminum welding wire that does not significantly impact the ability to manufacture a wire (Berube Col. 4 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 9, Das and Holloway teach the tubular welding electrode of claim 1, but are silent on wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode.
Berube teaches wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode (Col. 6 lines 5-15 the core 54 may account for less than approximately less than approximately 5% of the weight of the wire).
It would have been obvious to have modified Das and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Berube to have the core ceramic material comprise up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode in order to provide a low fill design that enables operators to easily substitute solid core aluminum welding wires used in existing wires with metal cored aluminum welding wires (Berube Col. 6 lines 5-15).
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (JPH05305439) and Holloway (US-9048005) as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, in view of Berube (US10850356).
Regarding claim 15, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 10, but are silent on wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode.
However, Berube teaches wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode (Col. 6 lines 5-15 the core 54 may account for less than approximately less than approximately 5% of the weight of the wire).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Berube to have the core ceramic material comprise up to 4% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode in order to provide a low fill design that enables operators to easily substitute solid core aluminum welding wires used in existing wires with metal cored aluminum welding wires (Berube Col. 6 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 21, Kamimura and Holloway teach the method of claim 16, but are silent on wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 2% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode.
However, Berube teaches wherein the granular core comprises a core ceramic material and wherein the core ceramic material comprises up to 2% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode (Col. 6 lines 5-15 the core 54 may account for less than approximately less than approximately 5% of the weight of the wire).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamimura and Holloway to incorporate the teachings of Berube to have the core ceramic material comprise up to 2% by weight percent of the tubular welding electrode in order to provide a low fill design that enables operators to easily substitute solid core aluminum welding wires used in existing wires with metal cored aluminum welding wires (Berube Col. 6 lines 5-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 9/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under Das (US 4683368) and claims 10 and 16 under Kamimura (JPH05305439) in view of Das (US 4683368) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made towards claim 1 in view of Das (US 4683368) in view of Holloway (US9048005) and towards claims 10 and 16 in view of Kamimura (JPH05305439) and newly cited reference Holloway (US9048005).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/25/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761