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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 03/05/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-6 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-3, 5-6 have been amended; claim 4 cancelled.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/17/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 03/05/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6 are no longer relied solely on the wire compositions of the wire 46 (W-46) of the prior art Mukai (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0230733 A1). See details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Furthermore, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the amount of Ni, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant alleged that: “An internet search for the alloys noted by Mukai have a content of Al and other elements as follows:
-- Alloy 600 (UNS N06600) contains a minimum of 72.0% nickel (Ni) along with 14-17% chromium (Cr), and 6-10% iron (Fe);
-- Alloy 625 (UNS N06625) contains a minimum of 58% nickel (Ni), typically composed of approximately 60%-61% nickel (Ni), 20%-23% chromium (Cr), 8%-10% molybdenum (Mo), and 3.15%-4.15% niobium (Nb), with a maximum of 5% iron (Fe);
-- Alloy C22 (UNS N06022) is a nickel-chromium-molybdenum-tungsten alloy that contains approximately 56-59% nickel (Ni), 20.0-22.5% chromium (Cr), 12.5-14.5% molybdenum (Mo), 2.0-6.0% iron (Fe), and 2.5% max cobalt (Co); and
-- Alloy C276 (TNS N10276) contains a nominal nickel (Ni) content of approximately 57%, typically listed as the balance of the alloy composition. It is a nickel- chromium-molybdenum alloy designed for extreme corrosion resistance, with the balance being made up of chromium (14.5-16.5%), molybdenum (15-17%), and iron (4-7%).”, see details on pages 7-9 of the Remarks dated 03/05/2026.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the prior art Mukai does not disclose the amount of Ni from 45 to 60 wt% as required by the independent claims 1, 3, and 5, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejections do not rely on the amounts of Ni from internet sources, rather, the rejections are based on the disclosure of the prior art Mukai. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Mukai’s explicit disclosure, which defines Ni as the balance of the alloy composition. To be more specific, Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, and Table 4 of Mukai on page 11 contains a list of wire compositions of wires W-40 to W-49. Table 4 of Mukai on page 11 states: “The balance is Ni and incidental impurities.”; therefore, the amount of Ni in the total wire composition is the balance, which is 100% minus the listed alloy elements. Based on Table 4, the calculated amount of Ni is approximately from 55.06 to 72.49 wt%. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 45 to 60 wt% overlaps with the range of 55.06 to 72.49 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness. Therefore, the prior art Mukai properly teaches the claimed range of Ni, and thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding the amount of Ni are not persuasive. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
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 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 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukai (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0230733 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mukai discloses a Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire comprising a sheath with a flux component disposed within the sheath (Mukai Par.0020 discloses: “A flux-cored wire for gas-shielded arc welding, the wire including a sheath and a flux that fills the sheath”, and Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy”), wherein a total wire composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire, which is based upon a combined weight of the sheath and the flux component (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy preferably satisfies, for example, in terms of mass fraction with respect to the total mass of the wire”), includes:
C present in an amount of 0.1 wt% or less (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “C: 0.005% to 0.150%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.1 wt% or less overlaps with the range of 0.005 wt% to 0.150 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.5 wt% of Si (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Si: 0.05% to 1.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.05 to 1.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.5 to 3.0 wt% of Mn (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mn: 0.10% to 4.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 4.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
15.0 to 22.0 wt% of Cr (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Cr: 10.00% to 35.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 15.0 to 22.0 wt% lies inside the range of 10.00 to 35.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
Nb present in an amount up to 2.9 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Nb: 4.50% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of up to 2.9 wt% lies inside the range of up to 4.50 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
5.0 to 7.01 wt% of Mo (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mo: 20.00% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 7.01 wt% lies inside the range of 20.00 wt% or less (including 0%) disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
3.0 to 9.0 wt% of Fe (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Fe: 0.10% to 10.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 3.0 to 9.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 10.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
SiO2 present in an amount of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0041 discloses: “SiO2: 0.30% to 2.00%”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the SiO2 of 0.30% to 2.00% is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.30 to 2.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
at least one oxide of Na20, K20, MgO, and CaO present in an amount of 0.1 to 3.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0042 discloses: “MgO: 0.50% or less (including 0%)”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the MgO of 0.50% or less (including 0%) is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.1 to 3.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.50 wt% or less disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
at least one oxide of A12O3, TiO2, and ZrO2 present in an amount of 5.0 to 12.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0041 discloses: “TiO2: 4.00% to 9.00%”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the TiO2 of 4.00% to 9.00% is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 12.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 4.00 to 9.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
Ni in an amount from 45 to 60 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”, and Table 4 discloses: “The balance is Ni and incidental impurities”; therefore, the amount of Ni in the total wire composition is the balance, which is 100% minus the listed alloy elements. Based on Table 4, the calculated amount of Ni is approximately from 55.06 to 72.49 wt%. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 45 to 60 wt% overlaps with the range of 55.06 to 72.49 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.), and
unavoidable impurities (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”);
wherein the total wire composition satisfies the following:
0.1 Na2O+{K20+0.5(MgO+Al2O3)}/{CaO+1.6(TiO2+SiO2)+0.2(ZrO2)} < 0.5 (the composition satisfies the equation, see compositions of wires W-40 to W-49 in Mukai Table 3 on page 10 because Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, specifically, calculations of W-40 to W-44: about 0.060 < 0.5, and calculations of W-45 to W-49: about 0.051 < 0.5); and
0.01 wt% Mn ≤ Nb wt% ≤ (0.01 wt% Mn) + 3.3 (the composition satisfies the equation, see compositions of wires W-40 to W-49 in Mukai Table 4 on page 11 because Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, specifically, calculations of W-40 to W-49 all satisfy the equation).
Regarding claim 2, Mukai discloses the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire set forth in claim 1, Mukai also discloses:
wherein the flux component further comprises MnO present in an amount of 0.1 wt% or less (Mukai Par.0092 & Tables 3-4 discloses the amount of MnO is 0 wt%, which is less than 0.1 wt% as required by the claim) and a fluorine compound provided such that F is provided in an amount of 0.1 to 1.5 wt% (Mukai Table 3 shows content of metal fluoride is 0.52 wt% for W-40 to W-44, and 0.35 wt% for W-45 to W-49, and Mukai Par.0072 discloses: “The content of the metal fluoride relative to the total mass of the wire is preferably 0.05% or more in terms of F because good arc stability is obtained. The content of the metal fluoride is more preferably 0.15% or more. The content of the metal fluoride relative to the total mass of the wire is preferably 0.80% or less in terms of F because a good covering performance of the slag can be maintained without decreasing the viscosity of the slag. The content of the metal fluoride is more preferably 0.60% or less.”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I).).
Regarding claim 3, Mukai discloses a Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire comprising a sheath with a flux component disposed within the sheath (Mukai Par.0020 discloses: “A flux-cored wire for gas-shielded arc welding, the wire including a sheath and a flux that fills the sheath”, and Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy”), wherein a deposited metal obtained from the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy preferably satisfies, for example, in terms of mass fraction with respect to the total mass of the wire”) has a composition comprising:
C being present in an amount of 0.1 wt% or less (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “C: 0.005% to 0.150%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.1 wt% or less overlaps with the range of 0.005 wt% to 0.150 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.5 wt% of Si (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Si: 0.05% to 1.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.05 to 1.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.5 to 3.0 wt% of Mn (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mn: 0.10% to 4.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 4.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
15.0 to 22.0 wt% of Cr (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Cr: 10.00% to 35.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 15.0 to 22.0 wt% lies inside the range of 10.00 to 35.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
Nb present in an amount up to 2.9 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Nb: 4.50% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of up to 2.9 wt% lies inside the range of up to 4.50 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
5.0 to 8 wt% of Mo (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mo: 20.00% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 8 wt% lies inside the range of 20.00 wt% or less (including 0%) disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
3.0 to 9.0 wt% of Fe (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Fe: 0.10% to 10.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 3.0 to 9.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 10.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
and a balance including Ni in an amount of 45 to 60 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”, and Table 4 discloses: “The balance is Ni and incidental impurities”; therefore, the amount of Ni in the total wire composition is the balance, which is 100% minus the listed alloy elements. Based on Table 4, the calculated amount of Ni is approximately from 55.06 to 72.49 wt%. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 45 to 60 wt% overlaps with the range of 55.06 to 72.49 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.) and unavoidable impurities (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”);
wherein the composition of the deposited metal satisfies the following:
[Fe+{15(2.8Nb+0.85Mn)}]/(Cr+Mo) < 7.0 (the composition satisfies the equation, see compositions of wires W-40 to W-49 in Mukai Table 4 on page 11 because Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, specifically, calculations of W-40 to W-44 and W-46 to W-49 satisfy the equation).
Regarding claim 5, Mukai discloses a Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire comprising a sheath with a flux component disposed within the sheath (Mukai Par.0020 discloses: “A flux-cored wire for gas-shielded arc welding, the wire including a sheath and a flux that fills the sheath”, and Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy”), wherein a total wire composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire, which is based upon a combined weight of the sheath and the flux component (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “The alloy component composition of the flux-cored wire for a Ni-based alloy preferably satisfies, for example, in terms of mass fraction with respect to the total mass of the wire”), includes:
C present in an amount of 0.1 wt% or less (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “C: 0.005% to 0.150%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.1 wt% or less overlaps with the range of 0.005 wt% to 0.150 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.5 wt% of Si (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Si: 0.05% to 1.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.05 to 1.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.5 to 3.0 wt% of Mn (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mn: 0.10% to 4.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 4.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
15.0 to 22.0 wt% of Cr (Mukai Table 4 discloses W-46 contains 21.37 wt% of Cr),
Nb present in an amount up to 2.9 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Nb: 4.50% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of up to 2.9 wt% lies inside the range of up to 4.50 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
5.0 to 10.0 wt% of Mo (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mo: 20.00% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 10.0 wt% lies inside the range of 20.00 wt% or less (including 0%) disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
3.0 to 9.0 wt% of Fe (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Fe: 0.10% to 10.00%”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 3.0 to 9.0 wt% lies inside the range of 0.10 to 10.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
SiO2 present in an amount of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0041 discloses: “SiO2: 0.30% to 2.00%”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the SiO2 of 0.30% to 2.00% is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.5 to 3.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.30 to 2.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
at least one oxide of Na20, K20, MgO, and CaO present in an amount of 0.1 to 3.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0042 discloses: “MgO: 0.50% or less (including 0%)”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the MgO of 0.50% or less (including 0%) is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 0.1 to 3.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 0.50 wt% or less disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
at least one oxide of A12O3, TiO2, and ZrO2 present in an amount of 5.0 to 12.0 wt% (Mukai Par.0041 discloses: “TiO2: 4.00% to 9.00%”, and based on Claims 1 & 6 of the prior art Mukai, the TiO2 of 4.00% to 9.00% is composition of the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 12.0 wt% overlaps with the range of 4.00 to 9.00 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
Ni present in an amount from 45 to 60 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”, and Table 4 discloses: “The balance is Ni and incidental impurities”; therefore, the amount of Ni in the total wire composition is the balance, which is 100% minus the listed alloy elements. Based on Table 4, the calculated amount of Ni is approximately from 55.06 to 72.49 wt%. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 45 to 60 wt% overlaps with the range of 55.06 to 72.49 wt% disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.), and
unavoidable impurities (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “the balance: Ni and incidental impurities”);
wherein the total wire composition satisfies the following:
0.1 Na2O+{K20+0.5(MgO+Al2O3)}/{CaO+1.6(TiO2+SiO2)+0.2(ZrO2)} < 0.5 (the composition satisfies the equation, see compositions of wires W-40 to W-49 in Mukai Table 3 on page 10 because Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, specifically, calculations of W-40 to W-44: about 0.060 < 0.5, and calculations of W-45 to W-49: about 0.051 < 0.5); and
0.01 wt% Mn ≤ Nb wt% ≤ (0.01 wt% Mn) + 3.3 (the composition satisfies the equation, see compositions of wires W-40 to W-49 in Mukai Table 4 on page 10 because Mukai Par.0130 discloses: “Wires W-40 to W-49 are flux-cored wires for Ni-based alloys”, specifically, calculations of W-40 to W-49 all satisfy the equation).
Regarding claim 6, Mukai discloses the Ni-based alloy flux-cored wire set forth in claim 5, Mukai also discloses:
an amount of Mo is 5.0 to 8 wt% (Mukai Par.0092 discloses: “Mo: 20.00% or less (including 0%)”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, since the claimed range of 5.0 to 8 wt% lies inside the range of 20.00 wt% or less (including 0%) disclosed by the prior art Mukai, therefore, the prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Miyata et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0121433 A1) discloses a flux-cored wire that is for build-up welding. Miyata further discloses a Ni-based alloy is an alloy that is designed to have a Ni content of 50% by mass or more in order to achieve a higher corrosion resistance than stainless steel.
Kawamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0276384 A1) discloses a Ni-base alloy weld metal that is suitable for welding of nuclear reactors, pressure vessels, or the like and a Ni-base alloy covered electrode used to form the Ni-base alloy weld metal. The contents of Cr, Fe, Mn, Ti, Si, Cu, N, Al, C, Mg, Mo, B, Zr, and Nb+Ta in the Ni-base alloy weld metal are properly specified and the contents of Co, P, and S in incidental impurities are controlled.
Mannan (U.S. Patent No. 9,017,490 B2) discloses a high strength, corrosion resistant alloy suitable for use in oil and gas environments includes, in weight %: 0-12% Fe, 18-24% Cr, 3-6.2% Mo, 0.05-3.0% Cu, 4.0-6.5% Nb, 1.1-2.2% Ti, 0.05-0.4% 0.05-0.2% Al, 0.005-0.040% C, balance Ni plus incidental impurities and deoxidizers.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached 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, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 05/02/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights