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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 12/23/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 9-12 has /have been cancelled previously. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 13-16 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-8 and 13-16 are as follow.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapoor et al. (US 2006/0165552 A1) in view of LEE et al. (US 2016/0271739 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Kapoor et al. disclose a solid wire (electrode of the present invention can be a solid wire electrode, [0007]) for gas metal arc welding (suitable welding means and methods such as… gas metal arc welding, [0029]), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass%:
C: 0.2 % to 0.8 % (0-0.6 %, [0014]),
Si: 0.15 % to 0.90 % (0.3 %, [0014]),
Mn: (0-4 %, [0014]),
P: 0.03 % or less (0-0.06 %, [0014]),
S: 0.03 % or less (0-0.1 %, [0014]),
Ni: 0.01 % to 10.00 % (0-26 %, [0014]),
Cr: 0.4 % to 4.0 % (0-25 %, [0014]),
Mo: 0.01 % to 3.50 % (0-7 %, [0014]),
B: 0.0001 % or more and less than 0.0010 % (0-1 %, [0014]),
N: 0.003 % to 0.12 % (0-0.4 %, [0014]),
V: 0.001 % to 0.04 % (0-0.5 %, [0014]),
with the balance consisting of Fe (Iron: 60-99.9 %, [0014]) and inevitable impurities (see details under [0014]).
Kapoor et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %.
LEE et al. further teach a solid wire for gas metal arc welding (gas metal arc welding had the same compositions as the submerged arc welding solid wires of Example 2, [0106]), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass%: Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %. (manganese (Mn): 15% to 32%, [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kapoor et al. with LEE et al.’s further teaching of Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %; because LEE et al. teach, in Para. [0029] of providing an excellent solid wire including manganese within a certain range for a formation of austenite and with a relatively inexpensive price.
Regarding Independent Claim 5, Kapoor et al. disclose a solid wire (electrode of the present invention can be a solid wire electrode, [0007]) for gas metal arc welding (suitable welding means and methods such as… gas metal arc welding, [0029]), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass%:
C: 0.2 % to 0.8 % (0-0.6 %, [0014]),
Si: 0.15 % to 0.90 % (0.3 %, [0014]),
Mn: (0-4 %, [0014]),
P: 0.03 % or less (0-0.06 %, [0014]),
S: 0.03 % or less (0-0.1 %, [0014]),
Ni: 0.01 % to 10.00 % (0-26 %, [0014]),
Cr: 0.4 % to 4.0 % (0-25 %, [0014]),
Mo: 0.01 % to 3.50 % (0-7 %, [0014]),
B: 0.0001 % or more and less than 0.0010 % (0-1 %, [0014]),
N: 0.003 % to 0.12 % (0-0.4 %, [0014]),
with the balance consisting of Fe (Iron: 60-99.9 %, [0014]) and inevitable impurities (see details under [0014]).
Kapoor et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %.
LEE et al. further teach a solid wire for gas metal arc welding (gas metal arc welding had the same compositions as the submerged arc welding solid wires of Example 2, [0106]), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass%: Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %. (manganese (Mn): 15% to 32%, [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kapoor et al. with LEE et al.’s further teaching of Mn: 17.0 % to 28.0 %; because LEE et al. teach, in Para. [0029] of providing an excellent solid wire including manganese within a certain range for a formation of austenite and with a relatively inexpensive price.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 13-16, Kapoor et al. in view of Amata et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Kapoor et al. further disclose:
Claim 2, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of Ti: 0.04 % or less (0-0.7 %, [0014]) and Nb: 0. 04 % or less.
Claim 3, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu: 1.0 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less (0-0.6 %, [0014]), Ca: 0.01 % or less, and Rare Earth Metals (REM): 0.02 % or less.
Claim 4, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu: 1.0 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less (0-0.6 %, [0014]), Ca: 0.01 % or less, and Rare Earth Metals (REM): 0.02 % or less.
Claim 6, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of V: 0.04 % or less, Ti: 0.04 % or less (0-0.7 %, [0014]) and Nb: 0. 04 % or less.
Claim 7, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu: 1.0 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less (0-0.6 %, [0014]), Ca: 0.01 % or less, and Rare Earth Metals (REM): 0.02 % or less.
Claim 8, wherein the chemical composition further contains, in mass%, at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu: 1.0 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less (0-0.6 %, [0014]), Ca: 0.01 % or less, and Rare Earth Metals (REM): 0.02 % or less.
Claim 13, wherein the solid wire provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more. Clearly, “the solid wire” is capable of “provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more” as claimed. Note: since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 14, wherein the solid wire provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more. Clearly, “the solid wire” is capable of “provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more” as claimed. Note: since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 15, wherein the solid wire provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more. Clearly, “the solid wire” is capable of “provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more” as claimed. Note: since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
Claim 16, wherein the solid wire provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more. Clearly, “the solid wire” is capable of “provides a weld metal having an absorbed energy vE-196 in a Charpy impact test at a test temperature of -196 °C is 28 J or more” as claimed. Note: since the combination of cited prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action as stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. 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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights