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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 9 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 17 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the groups share the same special technical features as amended. This is found persuasive and therefore the claims pertaining to Groups I and III are rejoined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the graph is not clear with an emphasis on item indicator 4 is not pointing to any feature AND all writing must be in black ink: See Figure 2, 37CFR1.84(l). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “1) Taking a straight steel plate to be used as a steel plate to be welded … 2) Presetting a butt gap between two steel plates to be welded … 3) Conducting welding by a laser filler wire welding process” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how steps 1 and 2 are related, i.e. is “a straight steel plate” of step 1 related to two steel plates of step 2 or is there 3 plates that are to be welded and how does step 3 “conducting welding by a laser filler wire” relate to steps 1 and 2? Examiner suggest amending claim 1 to clearly point out steps for manufacturing an equal-strength steel thin-walled welded component. As written, there are no clear relationships between steps 1, 2 and 3.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein during the welding in step 3), a shielding gas is one containing an active gas, wherein the active gas has a volume percentage of from 5% to 100%” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to if a shielding gas is actually required in step 3 since the shield gas is not positively recited as an active step.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “An equal-strength steel thin-wall welded component with an aluminum or aluminum alloy clad layer manufactured by the method of claim 1” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what constitutes “An equal-strength steel thin-wall” since the method of claim 1 is deemed to be indefinite as discussed above, it is also unclear as to where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “An equal-strength steel thin-wall welded component with an aluminum or aluminum alloy clad layer … wherein a welding wire for welding the steel plate of the equal-strength component has a composition based on weight percentage of C 0.05-0.16%, Si 0.2-0.5%, Mn 1.5-2.8%, P<0.03%, S<0.005%, AI<0.06%, Ni 1.5-3%, Cr 0.05-0.2%, Mo 0.1-0.7%, and a balance Fe and other unavoidable impurities” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the “welding wire” would be a component of the “equal-strength steel thin-wall welded component” since the welding wire appears to connected to a method that is not tied to the component.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “The method for manufacturing an equal-strength steel thin- wall welded component with an aluminum or aluminum alloy clad layer according to claim 8, wherein the welding wire used for the welding in step 3) has a composition based on weight percentage of C 0.05-0.14%, Si 0.3-0.5%, Mn 1.5-2.4%, P<0.02%, S<0.005%, AI<0.06%, Ni 1.5-3%, Cr 0.05-0.2%, Mo 0.3-0.7%, and a balance Fe and other unavoidable impurities” renders the claim indefinite because the composition of the welding wire is defined, therefore it is unclear if the composition of claim 16 is replacing the composition of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “The method for manufacturing an equal-strength steel thin- wall welded component with an aluminum or aluminum alloy clad layer according to claim 8, wherein the welding wire used for the welding in step 3) has a composition based on weight percentage of C 0.07-0.14%, Si 0.3-0.5%, Mn 1.5-2.2%, P<0.02%, S<0.005%, AI<0.06%, Ni 1.8-3%, Cr 0.1-0.2%, Mo 0.4-0.7%, and a balance Fe and other unavoidable impurities” renders the claim indefinite because the composition of the welding wire is defined, therefore it is unclear if the composition of claim 17 is replacing the composition of claim 1.
Claims 18 and 19 recites the limitation, “The welding wire for welding according to claim 9, having a composition based on weight percentage” followed by a weight percentage of different elements renders the claim indefinite because the different elements appear to conflict with the compositions of claim 1, therefore it is unclear if the composition of claims 18 and 19 are replacing the composition of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation, “he equal-strength steel thin-wall welded component with an aluminum or aluminum alloy clad layer according to claim 12, wherein the substrate has a composition based on weight percentage of C: 0.15-0.5%, Si: 0.1-0.5%, Mn: 0.5-0.3%, P<0.1%, S<0.05%, AI: 0.01-0.09%, Ti: 0.01-0.2%, B: 0.001-0.02%, Cr: 0.15-0.8%, and a balance of Fe and other unavoidable impurities” renders the claim indefinite because the composition is already defined in claim 1, therefore it is unclear if the composition 20 is replacing the composition of claim 1.
Remarks
While this is meant to be a comprehensive list of all 112 issues in the claims, due to the length and nature of the claims, it may not be possible to indicate every 112 issue and the Applicant is requested to perform a thorough review of the claims for any outstanding 112 issues. The applicant is also requested to proof-read any future amendments for any potential 112 issues that can arise from the amendments due to the complexity of the claims.
The Examiner notes that the claims remain so indefinite that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims, and thus preclude a prior-art rejection thereon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES F SIMS III whose telephone number is (571)270-7496. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30 EST M-F.
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, Landrum F Edward can be reached at 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 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.
/JAMES F SIMS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights