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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
The status of the 01/20/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 6-9, and 13-16 have been amended; and claims 1-18 are pending.
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 20150114944) in view of Takashi (JP 2018144045, published on 09/20/2018) and Hara (US 20040020912)
Regarding Claim 1, Fukuda discloses a Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) (title), comprising a Ni-based alloy outer sheath (Ni based alloy as a sheath) and a flux (flux components) with which the Ni-based alloy outer sheath is filled (abstract), wherein the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire comprises, per a total mass of the wire:
Ni: 45 mass% to 75 mass% (Ni: 53-75%, para. 0051);
Cr: 20 mass% or less (Cr: 1-15%, para. 0053);
Mo: 10 mass% to 20 mass% (Mo: 10-20%, para. 0055);
Fe: 10.0 mass% or less (Fe: 2.0-8.0%, para. 0061);
TiO2: 3 mass% to 11 mass% (TiO2: 3-15%, para. 0083);
F: 1.0 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “1.0 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that F is not required); and
Nb: less than 0.5 mass% (Nb: 0.03% or less, para. 0073); and
Metal Al: 0.01 mass% to 1.0 mass% (Al: 0.02-0.50%, para. 0065).
Fukuda does not disclose the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire comprises Ca: 0.01 mass% to 2.0 mass%.
However, Takashi discloses a Ni-based alloy flux cored wire comprises Ca: 0.01 mass% to 2.0 mass% (CaO: 0.1-0.8%) (para. 0031 and 0016) (it is noted according to para. 0017 of the original specification, example of Ca source includes CaO. The content of Ca is the total content of Ca contained in a single metal of Ca, a Ca alloy, and a Ca compound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire of Fukuda to include the Ca: 0.01 mass% to 2.0 mass% as taught by Takashi, in order to utilize the Ca to adjust the melting point and viscosity of the slag, suppress the trapping of CO gas present in the slag and the surface of the molten metal, reduces the occurrence of blowholes and pits, and has the effect of improving defect resistance (para. 0031 of Takashi).
The modification does not disclose the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire comprises B: 0.005 mass% to 0.10 mass %.
However, Hara discloses a flux-cored wire comprises B: 0.005 mass% to 0.10 mass % (B: 0.001-0.02% by mass, para. 0038 and 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire of Fukuda to include the B: 0.005 mass% to 0.10 mass % as taught by Hara, because boron is known to have the effect of fining the microstructure of the weld metal and improve the toughness of the weld metal.
Regarding Claim 2, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
metal Al: 0.01 mass% to 1.0 mass% in total (Al: 0.02-0.50%, para. 0065), and
wherein a C content is limited to 0.05 mass% or less (C: less than 0.05%, para. 0069).
Regarding Claim 3, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
Si: 0.1 mass% to 1.5 mass% (Si: less than 0.2%, para. 0071);
Al203: 1.0 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “1.0 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that Al203 is not required);
ZrO2: 0.5 mass% to 3.0 mass% (ZrO2: 3.0-15.0%, para. 0083); and
at least one selected from the group consisting of Na, K, and Li: 0.1 mass% to 1.0 mass% in total (Na: 0.1-1.0%, para. 0086).
Regarding Claim 4, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) further comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
W: 1.0 mass% to 5.0 mass% (W: 1.5-5.0%, para. 0059); and
Mn: 1.5 mass% to 5.5 mass% (Mn: 1.5-5.5%, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 5, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) further comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
W: 1.0 mass% to 5.0 mass% (W: 1.5-5.0%, para. 0059); and
Mn: 1.5 mass% to 5.5 mass% (Mn: 1.5-5.5%, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 6, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 7, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 8, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 9, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 10, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
Si: 0.1 mass% to 1.5 mass% (Si: less than 0.2%, para. 0071);
Al203: 1.0 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “1.0 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that Al203 is not required);
ZrO2: 0.5 mass% to 3.0 mass% (ZrO2: 3.0-15.0%, para. 0083); and
at least one selected from the group consisting of Na, K, and Li: 0.1 mass% to 1.0 mass% in total (Na: 0.1-1.0%, para. 0086).
Regarding Claim 11, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) further comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
W: 1.0 mass% to 5.0 mass% (W: 1.5-5.0%, para. 0059); and
Mn: 1.5 mass% to 5.5 mass% (Mn: 1.5-5.5%, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 12, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire) further comprises, per the total mass of the wire:
W: 1.0 mass% to 5.0 mass% (W: 1.5-5.0%, para. 0059); and
Mn: 1.5 mass% to 5.5 mass% (Mn: 1.5-5.5%, para. 0057).
Regarding Claim 13, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 14, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 15, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 16, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), further comprising, per the total mass of the wire:
wherein a V content is limited to 0.03 mass% or less (it is noted the limitation “0.03 mass% or less” includes 0. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that V is not required),
a P content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (P:0.015 or less) (para. 0075), and
a S content is limited to 0.010 mass% or less (S:0.010 or less) (para. 0075).
Regarding Claim 17, Takashi discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (flux-cored wire), wherein the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire has a Ca content of 0.3 mass% to 2.0 mass% (CaO: 0.1-0.8%, para. 0031), based on a total mass of the wire (it is noted according to para. 0017 of the original specification, example of Ca source includes CaO. The content of Ca is the total content of Ca contained in a single metal of Ca, a Ca alloy, and a Ca compound).
Regarding Claim 18, Fukuda discloses the Ni-based alloy flux cored wire (Ni based alloy flux cored wire), wherein the Nb content is limited to 0.10% or less (Nb:0.03% or less, para. 0073).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not respectfully found persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: on p. 8 of the Remarks, “Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Fukuda and Takashi based on conflicting teachings regarding the Nb content of the wire. Regarding Nb content, paragraph [0021] of Takashi states that "When the Nb content is less than 0.5 mass%, its effect cannot be sufficiently obtained and the strength of weld metal decreases." Based on this, Takashi specifically disparages the use of Nb contents less than 0.5 mass% as unsuitable. In contrast, Fukuda teaches that Nb content should be low to reduce hot cracking, preferring a range of less than 0.030 mass%. See [0073 ]-[007 4].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be taught or motivated to combine the teachings of Fukuda and Takashi to reach the composition recited in Claim 18.”
Examiner’s response: with respect to claim 18, Applicant’s argument is respectfully not persuasive because both Fukuda and Takashi are directed to flux-cored electrode, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them.
Takashi is relied upon for the disclosure of the flux cored electrode comprises CaO: 0.1-0.8%, which overlaps the claimed range Ca: 0.01 mass% to 2.0 mass% (para. 0031 and 0016), for the motivation adjust the melting point and viscosity of the slag, suppress the trapping of CO gas present in the slag and the surface of the molten metal, reduces the occurrence of blowholes and pits, and has the effect of improving defect resistance (para. 0031 of Takashi). All other composition are already disclosed by primary reference Fukuda.
Specifically in claim 18, primary reference Fukuda already discloses Nb: 0.03 or less (para. 0073), which overlaps the claimed range 0.1 % or less. Takashi is not relied upon for the disclosure having the composition Nb: 0.5-3.0 %. Respectfully, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights