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 .
Election/Restriction Response
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15) and Species 1 (Figs. 2-2A) in the reply filed on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The status of the 08/14/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 16-21 have been withdrawn; and Claims 1-21 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 (similarly applying to claims 3-12, and 15):
The phrase “The method of alloying a weld in an induction-kinetic welding” in line 1 should be read “The method of alloying the weld in the induction-kinetic welding”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lingnau (US 6637642) in view of Obayashi (US 20120267010)
Regarding Claim 1, Lingnau discloses a method of welding two metal parts using an induction-kinetic welding (pipes 10, 11) (abstract, col. 1, 2 lines 8-17, 14-18 respectively) (it is noted the solid state welding involves using the coil to preheat the pipes and the friction welding that convert kinetic energy (i.e. rotational motion) into heat to weld the two pipes together), said method comprising:
heating substantially planar portions of two metal parts (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) with an induction heating coil (coil 9) in between the planar portions (col. 11, lines 48-52);
during at least a portion of the step of heating the planar portions, flowing a gas (shielding gas 14) in proximity to the planar portions (col. 12, lines 14-27);
retracting the induction heating coil (coil 9) from in between the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) (“Upon the simultaneous achievement of the forging velocity and hot working temperature, the induction coil 9 is immediately and quickly retracted from its operative position between the workpieces”, col. 13, lines 64-67);
forcing the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) into contact with each other and moving at least one of the two metal parts in a lateral motion to produce viscoplastic flow heating in a kinetic energy welding process (col. 11, lines 39-47), wherein the metal parts are welded together (col. 14, 2, 5 lines 1-19, 14-19, 62-67 respectively).
Lingnau does not disclose during at least a portion of the step of heating the planar portions, flowing the gas containing an alloying element precursor in proximity to the planar portions, wherein in a chemical reaction an alloying element alloys the planar portions.
However, Obayashi discloses during at least a portion of the step of heating the planar portion (steel part), flowing the gas containing an alloying element precursor (hydrocarbon gas i.e. methane) in proximity to the planar portion (steel), wherein in a chemical reaction (decompressed carburization) an alloying element (carbon) alloys the planar portion (steel) (para. 0041-0042 and abstract) (it is noted steel is heated in the presence of hydrocarbon gas i.e. methane CH4 that results in carburization, in which carbon is dissolved into steel part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas of Lingnau to contain the alloying element precursor (i.e. methane CH4) and modify the method of Lingnau to heat the planner portions (i.e. pipes 10, 11) in a manner that causes the carburization to occur that results in the carbon is dissolved in the steel of the pipes 10, 11. Doing so would improve the surface hardness of the pipes 10, 11 that require wear resistance and can improve the characteristics of the welded portion (para. 0010 and 0015 of Obayashi). The resultant method would comprise the method of alloying the weld (accumulated carbon is dissolved in a matrix) in induction-kinetic welding of metal parts together (pipes 10, 11) (para. 0042 of Obayashi).
Regarding Claim 2, Lingnau discloses the method, wherein the step of heating the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) lasts more than 10 seconds (col. 13, lines 40-45) (it is noted the heating of the planar portions by the coil lasts more than 10 seconds).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses the method, wherein the chemical reaction is defined by 3Fe +CH4→Fe3C + 2H2 (para. 0041-0042 of Obayashi) (it is noted the steel of the planar portions of Lingnau undergoes carburization process in the presence of hydrocarbon gas (such as methane CH4, propane C3H8, ethylene C2H4, and acetylene C2H2, for example) that results in the carbon is dissolved in the matrix of the planar portions, thereby strengthening the planar portions, para. 0010 and 0015 of Obayashi. The original specification of the instant application, para. 0026 describes the pipes undergoes carburizing process in which methane gas CH4 is used. According to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses the method, wherein the chemical reaction is defined by 6Fe + C2H4→2Fe3C + 2H2 (para. 0041-0042 of Obayashi) (it is noted the steel of the planar portions of Lingnau undergoes carburization process in the presence of hydrocarbon gas (such as methane CH4, propane C3H8, ethylene C2H4, and acetylene C2H2, for example) that results in the carbon is dissolved in the matrix of the planar portions, thereby strengthening the planar portions, para. 0010 and 0015 of Obayashi. The original specification of the instant application, para. 0026 describes the pipes undergoes carburizing process in which ethylene gas C2H4 is used. According to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses the method, wherein the chemical reaction is defined by 6Fe + C2H2 →2Fe3C + 2H2 (para. 0041-0042 of Obayashi) (it is noted the steel of the planar portions of Lingnau undergoes carburization process in the presence of hydrocarbon gas (such as methane CH4, propane C3H8, ethylene C2H4, and acetylene C2H2, for example) that results in the carbon is dissolved in the matrix of the planar portions, thereby strengthening the planar portions, para. 0010 and 0015 of Obayashi. The original specification of the instant application, para. 0026 describes the pipes undergoes carburizing process in which acetylene gas C2H2 is used. According to MPEP 2112.01, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent).
Regarding Claim 8, Lingnau discloses the method, wherein the gas (gas) is flowed outwardly and substantially evenly across the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) in a direction away from an axis (axis line 17; fig. 3A-3B) perpendicular to and running through a center of the planar portions (col. 12, lines 19-29) (it is noted the gas enters the gaps 12, 13 radially displacing any oxygen way from the exposed faying surfaces of the pipes 10, 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Lingnau discloses the method, wherein the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) are endfaces of two pipes (pipes 10, 11) (col. 12, lines 14-20).
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses the method, wherein the steps of the method are performed at substantially atmospheric pressure (“carburizing process performed with the pressure of the atmosphere in the furnace reduced”, para. 0042 of Obayashi).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lingnau (US 6637642) and Obayashi (US 20120267010) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schaeffer (US 5598968)
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Lingnau discloses the step of heating the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) lasts more than 10 seconds (col. 13, lines 40-45) (it is noted the heating of the planar portions by the coil lasts more than 10 seconds). Obayashi discloses the method, wherein the steel surface is heated to a temperature of at least 950°C (para. 0061).
The modification does not disclose the temperature of the planar portions reaches a temperature of at least 1000 °C.
However, Schaeffer discloses the temperature of the planer portion (superalloy component) reaches a temperature of at least 1000 °C (temperature of about 980.degree. C. to about 1090.degree. C) (col. 5, lines 54-67) during carburization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of heating the planar portions of Lingnau to reach the temperature of at least 1000 °C, because it is well-known temperature for the carburization to occur.
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, further comprising: during the step of heating the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11 of Lingnau), maintaining a temperature of the planar portions of at least 700°C (950°C) for a period of time (fig. 14).
The modification does not disclose the period of time is more than 5 seconds.
However, Schaeffer discloses maintaining the temperature of at least 700°C for more than 5 seconds (during of about one hour) (col. 5, lines 54-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the step of heating the planar portions of Lingnau in view of Obayashi to maintain the temperature of planar portions of at least 700°C for more than 5 seconds as taught by Schaeffer, in order to ensure that the carburization is obtained on the surface of the planar portions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lingnau (US 6637642) and Obayashi (US 20120267010) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hacikyan (US 20170225258) and Kenmochi (US 20090223935)
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Lingnau discloses the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11) are endfaces of two pipes (pipes 10, 11) (fig. 3A), wherein the two pipes (pipes 10, 11) include a first pipe (pipe 10) and a second pipe (pipe 11), wherein a gas hose 55 is disposed in an assembly including the induction heating coil (coil 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose:
a first purge dam is disposed in the first pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, wherein a second purge dam is disposed in the second pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, and
the gas hose comprises a gas diffuser.
However, Hacikyan’258 discloses a first purge dam (blocking member 20, 20A) is disposed in the first pipe (pipe 10) and a second purge dam (blocking member 18, 18A) is disposed in the second pipe (pipe 8) (para. 0043; fig. 7B).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
746
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first pipe and second pipe of Lingnau in view of Obayashi to include the first purge dam and the second purge dam respectively, in order to retain the gas around the weld area and to prevent outside air from entering the weld area that can cause undesirable oxidation.
The modification would result in the structure, in which the first purge dam is disposed in the first pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, wherein the second purge dam is disposed in the second pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil.
PNG
media_image4.png
1062
937
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the gas diffuser.
However, Kenmochi discloses a gas diffuser (gas supply nozzle 60) to diffuse gas on each strip edge (para. 0120; fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas hose of Lingnau in view of Obayashi and Hacikyan to include the gas diffuser as taught by Kenmochi, in order to diffuse gas onto the faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lingnau (US 6637642) and Obayashi (US 20120267010) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hacikyan (US 20170225258)
Regarding Claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the planar portions (faying surfaces of pipes 10, 11 of Lingnau) are endfaces of two pipes (fig. 3A), wherein the two pipes (pipes 10, 11) include a first pipe (pipe 10) and a second pipe (pipe 11).
The modification does not disclose a first purge dam is disposed in the first pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, wherein a second purge dam is disposed in the second pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, wherein a gas diffuser is disposed in the first purge dam.
However, Hacikyan discloses a first purge dam (blocking member 20, 20A) is disposed in the first pipe (pipe 10) and a second purge dam (blocking member 18, 18A) is disposed in the second pipe (pipe 8) (para. 0043; fig. 7B), wherein a gas diffuser (purge gas dispensing tip 29) is disposed in the first purge dam (blocking member 20, 20A) (para. 0046; fig. 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first pipe and second pipe of Lingnau in view of Obayashi to include the first purge dam and the second purge dam respectively, wherein the gas diffuser is disposed in the first purge dam as taught by Hacikyan, in order to retain the gas around the weld area and to prevent outside air from entering the weld area that can cause undesirable oxidation.
The modification would result in the structure, in which the first purge dam is disposed in the first pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil, wherein the second purge dam is disposed in the second pipe in proximity to the induction heating coil.
PNG
media_image4.png
1062
937
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses the welded pipes of the method of claim 11 (abstract of Lingnau).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lingnau (US 6637642) and Obayashi (US 20120267010) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Toulmin (US 3134893)
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Obayashi discloses the gas is a carburizing gas (para. 0042, methane) (it is noted according to the original specification para. 0028 of the instant application, “methane” is used in a carburizing process to deposit carbon onto the endfaces 40, 42.).
The modification does not disclose a second gas is flowed in proximity to the planar portions, wherein the second gas contains an elemental transition metal, wherein the transition metal is deposited on the planar portions.
However, Toulmin discloses a second gas (gaseous metal bearing compound) is flowed in proximity to the planar portions (substrate members 31, 32) (fig. 1), wherein the second gas contains an elemental transition metal (metal), wherein the transition metal is deposited on the substrate (“gaseous metal carbonyl in contact with the heated weld area decomposes depositing metal over the weld area which functions as a metal flux to assist in producing a tenaceous adherent weld uniting the workpieces.”, col. 2, lines 8-19).
PNG
media_image5.png
428
322
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lingnau in view of Obayashi, to add the second gas flown in proximity of the planar portions, wherein the second gas contains an elemental transition metal as taught by Toulmin, in order to form the gaseous shield about the welded area and to allow the second gas to decompose in the presence of heat to deposit metal over the welded area which functions as a metal flux to assist in producing a tenacious adherent weld uniting the two workpieces (col. 2, lines 8-19 of Toulmin).
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses the welded metal parts of the method of claim 11 (abstract of Lingnau).
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571)272-9059. 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
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761