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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/26/2025 has been entered.
The status of the 12/26/2025 claims, is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended; and Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
In claim 13:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation
PNG
media_image1.png
36
139
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and the claim also recites
PNG
media_image2.png
36
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the narrower range
PNG
media_image2.png
36
144
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is required by the claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20080169334)
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang discloses a wire (solid wire, para. 0099; Table 5) for gas-shielded arc welding (MAG welding) (abstract), consisting of, based on a total mass of the wire (in weight % with respect to a total weight of the wire) (para. 0015):
C: 0.01 to 0.10 mass% (C: 0.01 to 0.1%, para. 0100-0101);
Si: 0.05 to 0.55 mass% (Si: 0.3 to 1.0%, para. 0102);
Mn: 1.60 to 2.40 mass% (Mn: 0.7 to 2.0%, para. 0104);
Ti: 0.05 to 0.25 mass% (Ti: 0.01 to 0.3%, para. 0123-0124);
Cu: 0.30 mass%or less (Cu: 0.01 to 0.5%, para. 0110);
Al: 0.10 mass%or less (Al: 0.01 to 0.5%, para. 0121);
P: 0.025 mass% or less (P: 0.001 to 0.003%, para. 0106), and
S: 0.010 mass%or less (S: 0.001 to 0.03%, para. 0108);
optionally at least one selected from the group consisting of: Ni: 0.10 mass% or less: Cr: 0.10 mass% or less; Co: 0.10 mass% or less; B: 0.01 mass% or less; and Sb:0.01 mass% or less (Ni: 0.01 to 1.0%, para. 0115-0116),
with a remainder being Fe and inevitable impurities (a remainder consisting of iron and inevitable impurities) (para. 0113),
wherein the following relationship is satisfied:
PNG
media_image3.png
42
172
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(it is noted the relationship is satisfied because Ti = 0.3% and Si = 0.3%. The ratio Ti/Si = 1, which is in the range between 0.49 and 3),
wherein [Si] is a content of Si (mass%) based on the total mass of the wire and [Ti] is a content of Ti (mass%) based on the total mass of the wire (para. 0015).
Regarding Claim 2, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the content of Si is at least 0.15 mass% (Si: 0.3 to 1.0%, para. 0102).
Regarding Claim 3, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the content of Ti is at least 0.12 mass% (Ti: 0.01 to 0.3%, para. 0123-0124).
Regarding Claim 4, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the following relationship is satisfied: ([Si]+[Ti]/3)/([C]/2 + 2x[Al])≥ 5, wherein [C] is a content of C (mass%) and [Al] is a content of Al (mass%), each based on the total mass of the wire (it is noted that Si = 1, Ti = 0.3, C = 0.01, Al = 0.01. Applying these values into the relationship = (1 + 0.3/3)/(0.01/2 + 2*0.01) = 1.1/(0.005 + 0.02) = 1.1/0.025 = 44, which is greater than 5. Therefore, the relationship is satisfied).
Regarding Claim 5, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the following relationship is satisfied: ([Si]+[Ti]/3)/([C]/2 + 2x[Al])≥ 5, wherein [C] is a content of C (mass%) and [Al] is a content of Al (mass%), each based on the total mass of the wire (it is noted that Si = 1, Ti = 0.3, C = 0.01, Al = 0.01. Applying these values into the relationship = (1 + 0.3/3)/(0.01/2 + 2*0.01) = 1.1/(0.005 + 0.02) = 1.1/0.025 = 44, which is greater than 5. Therefore, the relationship is satisfied).
Regarding Claim 6, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the content of Ti is at least 0.12 mass% (Ti: 0.01 to 0.3%, para. 0123-0124).
Regarding Claim 7, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the following relationship is satisfied: ([Si]+[Ti]/3)/([C]/2 + 2x[Al])≥ 5, wherein the following relationship is satisfied: ([Si]+[Ti]/3)/([C]/2 + 2x[Al])≥ 5, wherein [C] is a content of C (mass%) and [Al] is a content of Al (mass%), each based on the total mass of the wire (it is noted that Si = 1, Ti = 0.3, C = 0.01, Al = 0.01. Applying these values into the relationship = (1 + 0.3/3)/(0.01/2 + 2*0.01) = 1.1/(0.005 + 0.02) = 1.1/0.025 = 44, which is greater than 5. Therefore, the relationship is satisfied).
Regarding Claim 8, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the following relationship is satisfied: ([Si]+[Ti]/3)/([C]/2 + 2x[Al])≥ 5, wherein [C] is a content of C (mass%) and [Al] is a content of Al (mass%), each based on the total mass of the wire (it is noted that Si = 1, Ti = 0.3, C = 0.01, Al = 0.01. Applying these values into the relationship = (1 + 0.3/3)/(0.01/2 + 2*0.01) = 1.1/(0.005 + 0.02) = 1.1/0.025 = 44, which is greater than 5. Therefore, the relationship is satisfied).
Regarding Claim 9, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein Cu is present in an amount of more than 0.00 to 0.30 mass% (Cu: 0.01 to 0.5%, para. 0110-0112) based on a total mass of the wire.
Regarding Claim 10, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein Al present in an amount of more than 0.00 to 0.10 mass% (Al: 0.01 to 0.5%, para. 0121), based on a total mass of the wire.
Regarding Claim 11, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein P present in an amount of more than 0.00 to 0.025 mass% (P: 0.001 to 0.003%, para. 0106), based on a total mass of the wire.
Regarding Claim 12, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire),wherein S present in an amount of more than 0.00 to 0.010 mass% (S: 0.001 to 0.03%, para. 0108), based on a total mass of the wire.
Regarding Claim 13, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein the following relationship is satisfied:
PNG
media_image4.png
38
166
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(based on the rejection to claim 1, the relationship would be present because the ratio Ti/Si = 1, which is between 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Hwang discloses the wire (solid wire), wherein Si is present in an amount of 0.05 to 0.35 mass% (Si: 0.3 to 1.0%, para. 0102), based on a total mass of the wire.
Response to Amendment
With respect to nonstatutory double patenting rejection: since terminal disclaimer has been filed, therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
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