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 .
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2-7, 9, and 11-12 are as previously presented. Claims 8 and 10 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5, filed on 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 under U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 applicant’s limitation to only ferrite and bainite and newly found prior art regarding these features.
Applicant argues that regarding the reference Bi, a POSA would understand that lower Nickel content results in higher tensile strength.
The Examiner finds this argument to not be persuasive as Bi discloses where Nickel is used to improve the strength of the welding seam, where lowering the Nickel content would result in a weakening of the welding seam and a lower tensile strength. Bi, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “nickel (Ni) can be solid-solution strengthening by grain refining and improve the strength of the welding seam”.
Applicant argues against Bi for the microstructure of ferrite and bainite as the Nickel values are different from that of primary reference Lu. It is the Examiner’s position that Bi’s microstructure teaching of ferrite and bainite are created through iron-carbon alloys, where the microstructures are formed through controlled cooling. As a result, Nickel does not have any impact on the ability for the iron-carbon alloy to form a specific microstructure and Bi’s microstructures could still be accomplished within Lu.
However, Applicant’s argument regarding solely requiring ferrite and bainite is persuasive and Bi has not been used as the reference to address this limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding the tensile strength mistranslation in Lu is persuasive and as previously stated in the Advisory Action sent on 12/18/2025, Liu has been used to show that tensile strength can be lower than 650 MPa. It is the Examiner’s position that tensile strength has more influencing factors than just material composition, where temperature, grain structure, processing methods, etc. can all influence the tensile strength. Liu further discloses in the Abstract how lasting strength and good stability is still able to be achieved even with a lower tensile strength.
Regarding Applicant’s argument against the combination of references resulting in the incorporation of Ni, Cr, and Cu to ensure high weather resistance and also achieving a tensile strength less than 650 MPa.
It is the Examiner’s position that the weather resistance index value is calculated solely through element percentage values, where if the prior art references disclose that element percentages are within the ranges as disclosed by the Applicant, then the weather resistance index I would automatically be met.
As for the tensile strength decrease, it is the Examiner’s position that the Applicant’s claimed welding wire only differs from the primary reference Lu in the Nickel and Chromium values, where the differences are extremely small. As stated in MPEP 2144.05 through Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the chromium and nickel values are so similar that one of ordinary skill in the prior art would expect the final alloy to have similar properties. As a result, the tensile strength from the altered alloy could deviate slightly from the 650 MPa as stated by Lu, such as by being 649 MPa, and this would still be similar in properties as with Lu.
It is the Examiner’s position that the Nickel values need to be deviated further so that there are no longer claimed ranges or amounts that are merely close. Looking at Applicant’s Table 2, the tensile strength appears to not have values approaching 649 MPa as well. If it is possible to further reduce the range of tensile strength in the claims so that they are no longer merely close to that of Lu, that would also be helpful.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 12 depend upon cancelled claim 8. For the purposes of substantive examination, claims 9 and 12 are assumed to depend upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN201910998451.1, filed on 10/21/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 105234584 A, hereinafter Lu) in view of Bi et al. (CN 108857137 A, hereinafter Bi) and Zhu et al. (CN 106736048 A, hereinafter Zhu) and Liu et al. (CN 101362262 A, hereinafter Liu) and Huang et al. (CN 109664050 A, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a wire rod for gas shielded welding wire (Abstract, “a high corrosion resistant weathering steel gas shielded solid welding wire”), comprising the following chemical elements in mass percentage:
C ≤ 0.03% (Abstract, “C is less than or equal to 0.01%”),
Mn: 0.20-0.70% (Abstract, “Mn: 0.5 to 1.0%”),
Si: 0.2-0.60% (Abstract, “Si: 0.40 to 0.60%”),
Ni (Abstract, “Ni: 3.0 to 4.0%”),
Cr (Abstract, “Cr: 1.25 to 1.55%”),
Cu: 0.15-0.35% (Abstract, “Cu: 0.17 to 0.30%”),
Ti: 0.01-0.07% (Abstract, “Ti: 0.02 to 0.06%”), and
the balance being Fe and inevitable impurities (Abstract, “the rest is iron and unavoidable impurities.”),
wherein a deposited metal formed from the gas shielded welding wire has a tensile strength of <650 MPa (Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “the obtained deposited metal mechanical property tensile strength up to 668Mpa”, where different welding conditions allow a user to control the tensile strength, where being “up to 668Mpa” means that the tensile strength can be lower, where a lower tensile strength is preferred, Page 2, Para. 7 from end, “However, existing solid welding wire and the high-resistant weathering steel armor plate to weld, the weld tensile strength is too high”).
Lu does not disclose:
Ni: 1.6-2.7%;
Cr: 1.60-2.20%;
where the deposited metal has a weather resistance index I of ≥ 10;
wherein the deposited metal formed from the welding wire consist of a microstructure of ferrite and bainite.
However, Bi discloses, in the similar field of gas shielded welding wires (Abstract, “high-strength continuous for the chemical component of gas shielded welding wire”), where the nickel content can be within 1.6-2.7% (Page 3, Para. 4 from end, “Ni: more than 1% and less than 3%”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the nickel content of the welding wire in Lu to include the values as taught by Bi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of not having a high nickel value that can cause the welding wire to have welding seam slag inclusion or air hole forming, which can be detrimental for the welds created by the welding wire, as stated by Bi, Page 3, Para. 3 from end, “nickel (Ni) can be solid-solution strengthening by grain refining and improve the strength of the welding seam, but also can keep excellent plasticity and toughness, and improve the fatigue resistance and reduce the sensitivity of the gap. but too high Ni content will reduce the fluidity of the welding seam technology, is easy to cause the welding forming, welding seam slag inclusion, air hole and so on.”.
Further, Zhu discloses, in the similar field of gas shielded welding wires (Abstract, “The medicine core welding wire of the invention is fit for the Ar CO2 mixed gas shielded welding”), where the chromium content can be within 1.60-2.20% (Abstract, “chromium 2 to 10%”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the chromium content of the welding wire in modified Lu to include the values as taught by Zhu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to increase the chromium content of the welding wire to improve the welding joint strength and improve corrosion resistance, as stated by Zhu, Page 3, Para. 5 from end, “chromium is an important precipitation strengthening element and can be combined in the grain boundary precipitation of carbon chromium compound, improves the welding joint strength, and forming an oxide film on the surface, improving the corrosion resistance and carbon”.
Regarding the specific chromium value, it is also the Examiner’s position that the range of values for chromium from Lu (Abstract, “Cr: 1.25 to 1.55%”) do not overlap with applicant’s range but are extremely close. As stated in MPEP 2144.05 through Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the chromium values are so close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding the weather resistance index I of ≥ 10, it is the Examiner’s position that taking the values of the metals within the welding wire of Lu and the teaching from Bi and Zhu and the weather resistance index calculation within applicant’s specification Para. 0.027 results in the following calculation: 26.01(0.15) + 3.88(1.6) + 1.20(1.6) + 1.49(0.4) + 17.28(0.01) – 7.29 (0.15)(1.6) – 9.1(1.6)(0.01) – 33.39(0.15)(0.15) = 10.151825, which is greater than 10.
Additionally, Liu discloses, in the similar field of gas-shielded welding wires (Abstract, “a gas-shielded welding wire of heat-resistant steel”), where similar metal values (Abstract, “0.40-0.60% of Si, 0.60-1.50% of Mn, less than or equal to 0.025% of S, less than or equal to 0.025% of P, 1.20-1.50% of Cr”) can produce a tensile strength less than 650 MPa (Abstract, “the tensile strength is more than or equal to 550 MPa”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the tensile strength of the welding wire in modified Lu to include the ability to be lower than 650 MPa depending on the specific metal values as taught by Liu.
Regarding the claimed tensile strength value, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose different metal values within the ranges set by the references of modified Lu to reach different tensile strength values as tensile strength is dependent upon the composition of the metals within the wire. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the primary reference Lu discloses a tensile strength that can reach values up to 668 MPa; thus, controlling the tensile strength so that it can have values below 668 MPa would be dependent on the metal values within the welding wire, where Liu shows that a lower tensile strength can be achieve through manipulation of metal composition.
Huang discloses, in the similar field of welding wires (Abstract, “welding seam tensile strength ≥ 650MPa submerged arc welding”), where the microstructure includes ferrite and bainite only (Abstract, “the weld metal has acicular ferrite, little eutectoid ferrite and bainite structure”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the microstructure of the weld metal in modified Lu to be ferrite and bainite only as taught by Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to keep excellent toughness in the weld seam and reduce the cost of the welding wire, as stated by Huang, Abstract, “prevents the heat when welding seam crystal grain coarsening, make the welding seam can still keep excellent toughness, and reduce the cost of the welding .”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the content of Ni is 1.8-2.2% (Teaching from Bi, Page 3, Para. 4 from end, “Ni: more than 1% and less than 3%”, where applicant’s range falls between 1-3%).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the content of Si is 0.30-0.50% (Lu, Abstract, “Si: 0.40 to 0.60%”, where 0.40% falls between 0.30-0.50%).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the content of Mn is 0.35-0.70% (Lu, Abstract, “Mn: 0.5 to 1.0%”, where 0.5% falls between 0.35-0.70%).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the content of Ti is 0.04-0.07% (Lu, Abstract, “Ti: 0.02 to 0.06%”, where 0.06% falls between 0.04-0.07%).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the inevitable impurities includes: P ≤ 0.015% (Lu, Abstract, “P is less than or equal to 0.010%”) and/or S ≤ 0.015% (Lu, Abstract, “S: 0.005 to 0.015%”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above, discloses wherein the deposited metal formed from the welding wire has a tensile strength of < 650 MPa (Lu, Page 5, Para. 5 from end, “the obtained deposited metal mechanical property tensile strength up to 668Mpa”, where different welding conditions allow a user to control the tensile strength, where being “up to 668Mpa” means that the tensile strength can be lower, where a lower tensile strength is preferred, Page 2, Para. 7 from end, “However, existing solid welding wire and the high-resistant weathering steel armor plate to weld, the weld tensile strength is too high”; teaching from Liu, Abstract, “the tensile strength is more than or equal to 550 MPa”) and
a weather resistance index I of ≥ 10 (Lu and teaching from Bi and Zhu, based on the values presented within Lu, Bi and Zhu, and the weather resistance index calculation within applicant’s specification Para. 0.027: 26.01(0.15) + 3.88(1.6) + 1.20(1.6) + 1.49(0.4) + 17.28(0.01) – 7.29 (0.15)(1.6) – 9.1(1.6)(0.01) – 33.39(0.15)(0.15) = 10.151825, which is greater than 10).
Claims 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 105234584 A, hereinafter Lu) in view of Bi et al. (CN 108857137 A, hereinafter Bi) and Zhu et al. (CN 106736048 A, hereinafter Zhu) and Liu et al. (CN 101362262 A, hereinafter Liu) and Huang et al. (CN 109664050 A, hereinafter Huang) in further view of Nishimoto et al. (WO 2019138986 A1, hereinafter Nishimoto).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Lu does not disclose:
further comprising rare earth elements in a content of ≤ 0.01%.
However, Nishimoto discloses, in the similar field of welding wires (Page 10, Para. 5, “The shape of the austenitic heat-resistant alloy may be a tube, a plate, a rod, a wire and a mold steel.”), where there can be an inclusion of rare earth elements in a content of ≤ 0.01% (Page 8, Para. 4-5 from end, “REM: 0 to 0.2000%, The rare earth element (REM) is an optional element and may not be contained.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding wire of modified Lu to include rare earth elements as taught by Nishimoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use rare earth elements to suppress the undesirable effects of oxygen and sulfur in forming oxides and sulfides; and where the corrosion resistance, hot workability, creep strength, and creep ductility can be enhanced, as stated by Nishimoto, Page 8, Para. 4 from end, “When included, REM forms stable oxides and sulfides to suppress the undesirable effects of O and S. When REM is contained, the corrosion resistance, hot workability, creep strength and creep ductility of the austenitic heat resistant alloy are enhanced…Therefore, the REM content is 0 to 0.2000%. The lower limit of the REM content is preferably 0.0005%, more preferably 0.0010%.”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Lu does not disclose:
a gas shielded welding wire made of the wire rod for gas shielded welding wire.
However, Nishimoto discloses where the welding wire can be made into different shapes that include a wire rod (Page 10, Para. 5, “The shape of the austenitic heat-resistant alloy of the present disclosure is not particularly limited. The shape of the austenitic heat-resistant alloy may be a tube, a plate, a rod, a wire and a mold steel.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the welding wire in modified Lu to be made into a rod as taught by Nishimoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing a user greater control over the shape that the welding wire alloy is produced, where different shapes can be selected depending on a user’s needs, as stated by Nishimoto, Page 10, Para. 5, “The shape of the austenitic heat-resistant alloy of the present disclosure is not particularly limited. The shape of the austenitic heat-resistant alloy may be a tube, a plate, a rod, a wire and a mold steel.”.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 105234584 A, hereinafter Lu) in view of Bi et al. (CN 108857137 A, hereinafter Bi) and Zhu et al. (CN 106736048 A, hereinafter Zhu) and Liu et al. (CN 101362262 A, hereinafter Liu) and Huang et al. (CN 109664050 A, hereinafter Huang) in further view of Oliver et al. (CN 105980592 B, hereinafter Oliver).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lu teaches the apparatus according to claim 8, as set forth above, discloses where the weld joint includes ferrite and austenite (Teaching from Bi, Page 4, Para. 3, “The inventive welding wire with high-strength continuous pipe rolling matching for steel belt butt welding or pipe-pipe butt welding…weld joint area is a heterogeneous tissue of acicular ferrite, acicular bainite, martensite and residual austenite, welding line hardness 345HV.”).
Modified Lu does not disclose:
wherein the ferrite has a phase ratio of 40% to 80%.
However, Oliver discloses, in the similar field of welding wires that create welds that have ferrite and austenite (Page 8, Para. 4 from end, “double-phase ferrite austenite stainless steel can produce an ingot, slab, block, square, and flat products, such as plate, sheet, strip, coiled, and long products such as bars, bar material, wire”), where the ferrite phase ratio can be between 40-80% (Page 4, Para. 1, “This invention claims a double-phase stainless steel in austenite phase at a ratio of 45-80 % under the condition of heat treatment, advantageously 55-70 %, and the rest is ferrite, to produce a favorable condition of the TRIP effect.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the weld joint composition in modified Lu to include the phase ratio as taught by Oliver.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to improve the corrosion resistance of the welding joint and include a TRIP effect for improving formability, as stated by Oliver, Page 3, Para. 4 from end, “improve the performance of the double-phase stainless steel described in the prior art and realizes a TRIP effect and high pitting resistance equivalent (PRE) and thereby produce excellent corrosion resistance of new double-phase ferrite-austenite stainless steel.”, and Page 2, Para. 5 from end, “dual phase ferrite-austenite stainless steel, the stainless steel with the TRIP (transformation induced plasticity) effect of high formability and high corrosion resistance and optimizing the pitting resistance equivalent (PRE).”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/25/2026
Prosecution Insights