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 1-10 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 written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 10 recites the limitation “to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal.” However, the specification does not teach this advantage, rather describes in [0014] “to thereby vibrate a molten metal and prompt the discharge of air bubbles entrapped in the molten metal,” but does not specifically mention “to prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 and 10 recites the limitation "to prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal.” It is unclear how the argon is prevented from remaining in the molten metal. It is unclear whether it is removed as a portion of the “air bubbles entrapped in the molten metal” as taught in applicant’s specification in [0014] or if there is another process “to prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal.” For purposes of examination, it is understood that argon is prevented from remaining in the molten metal by removing air bubbles entrapped in the molten metal through vibrations.
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 no obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunami (JP6568622) in view of Inoue (US 11370052) and further in view of Ono (JP2011110600) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
228
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Tsunami
Regarding claim 1, Tsunami teaches a consumable electrode ([0100] melting electrode) arc welding method using a shielding gas ([0010] shielding gas),
comprising: setting a first welding condition in which a first welding current is supplied to a welding wire ([0023] a base current value, which is a current value smaller than the average current value);
and setting a second welding condition in which a second welding current is supplied to a welding wire ([0023] a peak current value, which is a current value larger than a set average current value),
the first welding condition or the second welding condition is a welding condition in which a tip portion of a welding wire goes into a space surrounded by a concave molten part ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire is buried at a position deeper than the molten metal pool, Fig. 8 the molten metal pool shown to be concave),
or in which an arc formation point in a liquid column formed at the tip portion goes into a space, wherein the space is formed on a base material by an arc ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire, the liquid column formed, is buried at a position deeper than the surface of the base material generated by the arc),
and the first welding condition and the second welding condition are switched at a cycle of a frequency ranging from 0.5 Hz to 32 Hz ([0034] switching frequency from 0.5Hz-32Hz) to thereby reduce the occurrence of blowholes to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part ([0034] switching frequency from 0.5Hz-32Hz to reduce the generation of blowholes by applying periodic vibration to the molten pool by increasing the switching frequency).
Tsunami does not explicitly teach “a frequency ranging from 1 Hz to 5 Hz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequency of Tsunami from between 0.5 Hz-32 Hz to between 1 Hz to 5 Hz since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tsunami is silent on a shielding gas containing argon; the first welding condition and the second welding condition are welding conditions in which a reference current of the welding current is 350 A or higher and a current variation range is from 50 A to 150 A, varying a setting voltage for each of the first welding condition and the second welding condition to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz; to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal.
However, Inoue teaches a shielding gas containing argon (Col. 6 lines 55-60 argon gas)
the first welding condition and the second welding condition are welding conditions in which a reference current of the welding current is 350 A or higher (Col. 4 lines 20-35 average current is 300 A or larger) and a current variation range is from 50 A to 150 A (Col. 4 lines 20-35 the current amplitude is 50 A or higher.),
to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal (Col. 12 lines 1-10 micro vibration of molten metal to occur at a frequency higher than the large corrugation frequency, preventing the molten metal from having coarse corrugation, taken to prevent argon from remaining).
Tsunami and Inoue are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to have use argon gas, have a first and second welding conditions be welding conditions which reference current is 350A or higher, vary a setting voltage in a range from 10 to 1000HZ, and to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal in order to suppress the coarse corrugation of the molten metal during welding (Inoue Col. 4 lines 50-65).
Tsunami and Inoue are silent on varying a setting voltage for each of the first welding condition and the second welding condition to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz.
PNG
media_image2.png
740
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Ono
Ono teaches varying a setting voltage (Fig. 8 [0004] MIG welding voltage Vwm) for each of the first welding condition (Fig. 8 [0005] high pulse period HT) and the second welding condition (Fig. 8 [0005] low pulse period LT) to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz (Fig. 8 [0005] the setting range of the switching frequency fc is about 0.5 to 25 Hz, where switching frequency fc is applied between each pulse).
Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami and Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Ono to vary the voltage for each welding condition in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz in order to suppress generation of spatter and stably supply a molten droplet (Ono [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono teach the arc welding method according to claim 1, and Tsunami teaches wherein the base material to be welded is stainless steel ([0035] steel materials).
Regarding claim 10, Tsunami teaches a consumable electrode ([0010] melting electrode),arc welding device using a shielding gas ([0010] shielding gas),
comprising: a setting circuit ([0024] control device 30) that sets a welding condition ([0024] control device 30 applies pulsed voltage, which applied the welding currents) by switching between a first welding condition in which a first welding current is supplied to a welding wire ([0023] a base current value, which is a current value smaller than the average current value) and a second welding condition in which a second welding current is supplied to a welding wire ([0023] a peak current value, which is a current value larger than a set average current value),
the first welding condition or the second welding condition is a welding condition in which a tip portion of a welding wire goes into a space surrounded by a concave molten part ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire is buried at a position deeper than the molten metal pool, Fig. 8 the molten metal pool shown to be concave),
or in which an arc formation point in a liquid column formed at the tip portion goes into a space, wherein the space is formed on a base material by an arc thus forming a buried arc for buried arc welding ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire, the liquid column formed, is buried at a position deeper than the surface of the base material generated by the arc),
and the first welding condition and the second welding condition are switched at a cycle of a frequency ranging from 0.5 Hz to 32 Hz to thereby reduce the occurrence of blowholes ([0034] switching frequency from 0.5Hz-32Hz to reduce the generation of blowholes) to thereby reduce the occurrence of blowholes to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part ([0034] switching frequency from 0.5Hz-32Hz to reduce the generation of blowholes by applying periodic vibration to the molten pool by increasing the switching frequency).
Tsunami does not explicitly teach “a frequency ranging from 1 Hz to 5 Hz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequency of Tsunami from between 0.5Hz-32Hz to between 1 Hz to 5 Hz since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Tsunami is silent on the first welding condition and the second welding condition are welding conditions in which a reference current of the welding current is 350 A or higher and a current variation range is from 50 A to 150 A, varying a setting voltage to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz.
However, Inoue teaches a shielding gas containing argon (Col. 6 lines 55-60 argon gas)
the first welding condition and the second welding condition are welding conditions in which a reference current of the welding current is 350 A or higher (Col. 4 lines 20-35 average current is 300 A or larger) and a current variation range is from 50 A to 150 A (Col. 4 lines 20-35 the current amplitude is 50 A or higher.),
to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal (Col. 12 lines 1-10 micro vibration of molten metal to occur at a frequency higher than the large corrugation frequency, preventing the molten metal from having coarse corrugation, taken to prevent argon from remaining).
It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to have use argon gas, to have a first and second welding conditions be welding conditions which reference current is 350A or higher, and to vibrate a molten metal of the concave molten part to thereby prevent the argon from remaining in the molten metal in order to suppress the coarse corrugation of the molten metal during welding (Inoue Col. 4 lines 50-65).
Tsunami and Inoue are silent on varying a setting voltage for each of the first welding condition and the second welding condition to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz.
Ono teaches varying a setting voltage (Fig. 8 [0004] MIG welding voltage Vwm) for each of the first welding condition (Fig. 8 [0005] high pulse period HT) and the second welding condition (Fig. 8 [0005] low pulse period LT)to be applied between the welding wire and the base material in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz (Fig. 8 [0005] the setting range of the switching frequency fc is about 0.5 to 25 Hz, where switching frequency fc is applied between each pulse).
It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami and Inoue to incorporate the teachings of Ono to vary the voltage for each welding condition in a range from 10 Hz to 1000 Hz in order to suppress generation of spatter and stably supply a molten droplet (Ono [0003]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunami (JP6568622), Inoue (US 11370052), and Ono (JP2011110600) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters (US20140263234).
Regarding claim 5, Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono teach the arc welding method according to claim 1, but are silent on further comprising setting a welding condition in which spray transfer is employed.
However, Peters teaches further comprising setting a welding condition in which spray transfer is employed ([0024] pulse spray transfer).
Tsunami, Inoue, Ono, and Peters are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono to incorporate the teachings of Peters to have spray transfer in order to control heat input (Peters [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsunami, Inoue, Ono and Peters teach the arc welding method according to claim 5, but Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono are silent on further wherein the welding condition in which the spray transfer is employed is set for a predetermined time period before welding performed by periodically switching the first welding condition and the second welding condition is started.
However, Peters teaches wherein the welding condition in which the spray transfer is employed is set for a predetermined time period before welding performed by periodically switching the first welding condition and the second welding condition is started ([0053] switching from pulse spray transfer to short arc transfer, taken to be the welding performed by periodically switching, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono to incorporate the teachings of Peters to have spray transfer performed before periodically switching between the first and second welding condition in order to control heat input (Peters [0053]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunami (JP6568622), Inoue (US 11370052), Ono (JP2011110600), and Peters (US20140263234) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nakano (JPH0985442) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 7, Tsunami, Inoue, Ono, and Peters teach the arc welding method according to claim 5, but are silent on wherein the welding condition in which the spray transfer is employed as the droplet transfer mode includes setting voltages higher than a setting voltage under the first condition and a setting voltage under the second condition.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the welding condition in which the spray transfer is employed as the droplet transfer mode includes setting voltages higher than a setting voltage under the first condition and a setting voltage under the second condition ([0021] voltage V, which determines the arc voltage VA (arc length), is smaller in the short-circuit transfer type welding than in the spray transfer type welding).
Tsunami, Inoue, Ono, Peters, and Nakano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami, Inoue, Ono, and Peters to incorporate the teachings of Nakano to have a voltage be higher for the spray transfer than the periodic first and second condition settings in order to set proper welding conditions which are controlled to maintain the specified droplet transfer form in the final welding (Nakano [0022]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunami (JP6568622), Inoue (US 11370052), and Ono (JP2011110600) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano (JPH0985442) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 8, Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono teach the arc welding method according to claim 1, and Tsunami teaches wherein the welding current related to the first welding condition is lower than the welding current related to the second welding condition ([0023] a base current value, which is a current value smaller than the average current value) but are silent on, the first welding condition includes setting voltages that allow the droplet transfer mode to be the spray transfer.
However, Nakano teaches wherein the first welding condition includes setting voltages that allow the droplet transfer mode to be the spray transfer ([0005, 0027] as current changes spray transfer is maintained according to desired output).
It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono to incorporate the teachings of Nakano to have spray transfer be used when current is low in order to maintain optimum voltage for maintaining the optimum bead appearance (Nakano [0027]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunami (JP6568622), Inoue (US 11370052), and Ono (JP2011110600) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinebuchi (JP2014004607) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 9, Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono teach the arc welding method according to claim 1, and Tsunami teaches wherein the first welding condition or the second welding condition is a welding condition in which a tip portion of a welding wire ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire is buried at a position deeper than the molten metal pool, Fig. 8 the molten metal pool shown to be concave) or an arc formation point in a liquid column formed at the tip portion goes into a space surrounded by a concave molten part formed on a base material by an arc ([0030] buried arc state in which the tip of the wire, the liquid column formed, is buried at a position deeper than the surface of the base material generated by the arc) and further comprising: welding a layer other than a last layer by periodically switching the first welding condition and the second welding condition using a solid wire in a case where the base material is multi-layer welded ([0049-0050] buried and open arc being pulsed), but is silent on welding the last layer using a flux-cored wire in a case where the base material is multi-layer welded.
Kinebuchi teaches welding the last layer using a flux-cored wire in a case where the base material is multi-layer welded ([0021] multi-layered material formed through flux-cored wire).
Tsunami, Inoue, Ono, and Kinebuchi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding devices. It would have been obvious to have modified Tsunami, Inoue, and Ono to incorporate the teachings of Kinebuchi to multilayer weld the based material, the last layer being welded with a flux-cored wire, in order to improve a fatigued of the welded joint (Kinebuchi [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-8 of the Remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 under Tsunami (JP6568622) in view of Inoue (US 11370052) 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 in view of Tsunami (JP6568622) in view of Inoue (US 11370052) and further in view of Ono (JP2011110600).
Regarding applicant's arguments that Tsunami and Inoue cannot be combined, on Pg. 9 of the Remarks, given that Tsunami teaches an advantage to reducing blowholes given a general vibration and Inoue varies a setting voltage which would run counter to the vibration effects, the combination is still applied, given that the combination of both mentioned concepts of Tsunami and Inoue is not understood to render the combination inoperable. A general vibration, as taught in Tsunami, is also not understood to work counter to the varying of setting voltage as taught in Inoue, as both processes could work together and would not have negative effects of the related processes or outcomes.
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.
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 10/9/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761