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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 01/01/2026 and 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection in light of RCE. Specifically, the previously cited primary reference Ikeda et al. (WO 2018159404 A1, previously cited) is no longer applied in any rejections in this Office Action.
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, 4, 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0388995 A1, newly cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), and further in view of Kasuya (WO 2011037272 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kodama discloses a welded member (welded joint 10, Kodama Fig.1) obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials (two sheets of base material 12 and 14, Kodama Fig.1) and performing fillet welding using a welding material (Kodama Pars.0042 & 0053 describes performing fillet welding using welding wire), the welded member (welded joint 10, Kodama Fig.1) having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof (Kodama Pars.0042), the welded member (welded joint 10, Kodama Fig.1), comprising:
a base material (two sheets of base material 12 and 14, Kodama Fig.1), a weld bead (weld metal 16, Kodama Fig.1) (Kodama Par.0105 discloses: “a welding method applicable to the method of manufacturing the welded joint of the present embodiment includes a gas shield welding method using a mixed gas of Ar and CO2 or the like. In particular, by adopting pulse MAG welding, it is possible to obtain a uniform weld bead shape even in high-speed welding, and to effectively realize the effect of the present invention (improvement of welding fatigue strength while suppressing low temperature cracking)”) and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion (weld root point E, Kodama Fig.1),
wherein the base material (two sheets of base material 12 and 14, Kodama Fig.1) has a tensile strength of 780MPa or more (Kodama Par.0014 discloses: “a high strength thin steel plate having a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more is used as a base material in joint welding”; therefore, Kodama discloses the base material has tensile strength of more than 780 MPa as required by the claim),
the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion (weld root point E, Kodama Fig.1) have an average Vickers hardness of 280 to 320 Hv (Kodama Par.0095 discloses: “the Vickers hardness HVwmr of the weld metal on the weld root point side defined below may satisfy the following relationship: HVwmr ≤ 350”, and Kodama Par.0096 discloses: “Point E in FIG. 1 is a so-called weld root point. The Vickers hardness HVwmr of the weld root portion is an average value of Vickers hardness of the weld metal in region F, which is 0.1 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less from the boundary between the weld metal on the weld root point side and the heat-affected zone (the boundary between the weld metal and the heat-affected zone located below the weld root point) to said weld metal side, which is in a cross section perpendicular to the welding line of the fillet welded joint and is on a straight line parallel to the surface of the base material, passing a position of 0.1 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less from weld root point E in the plate thickness direction of the base material. This average value is an average value of the hardness in at least arbitrary three points in region F.”. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the average Vickers hardness of the prior art is less than or equal to 350 Hv (also see Table 3 on page 9, where the prior art Kodama discloses the Vickers hardness values of 311, 281, 295, 291 Hv and other values), which overlaps with the claimed range of 280 to 320 Hv and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose:
the toe angle of 160o or more, and
the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more.
Bae teaches a welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two steel base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material (Bae Figs.2-4), the welded member comprising:
the toe angle of 160o or more (Bae Fig.5(f) shows the angle on the other side of the toe angle is 20o, therefore, Bae teaches the toe angle of 160o [because of supplementary angles rule], see Bae annotated Fig.5(f) below; it is noted that the toe angle defined by Bae is on the opposite side compared to the toe angle defined by the Instant Application (see Bae Fig.5(f) and Instant Application Figs.1(a)-1(b)); therefore, Bae teaches the toe angle of 160o because the red angle of 160o is supplementary to the white angle of 20o, as shown in Bae annotated Fig.5(f) below)
PNG
media_image1.png
299
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodama, by making the toe angle of 160o, as taught by Bae, in order to increase the fatigue properties of the welded members, as recognized by Bae [Bae, Translated Document on page 2, paragraph 10 teaches: “Method for increasing the fatigue properties of the welded members can be divided into methods using a large residual stress and the method of controlling the bead shape. For the present invention, the control of the bead shape to improve the fatigue properties of the welded members, and for that purpose, the metal parts of toe angle welding (toe angle) to less than 35 (excluding 0 ), preferably more for this purpose It is to be a technical feature that the control is less than 20 , still more preferably a (excluding 0 ) 25 or less (excluding 0 ).”; it is noted that the toe angle defined by Bae is on the opposite side compared to the toe angle defined by the Instant Application (see Bae Fig.5(f) and Instant Application Figs.1(a)-1(b)); therefore, Bae teaches the toe angle of 160o because the red angle is supplementary to the white angle of 20o, as shown in Bae annotated Fig.5(f) above].
Kodama in view of Bae does not explicitly teach:
the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more.
Kasuya teaches a welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two steel base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material (Kasuya Fig.4), the welded member comprising:
the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more (Kasuya Translated Document on page 19 paragraph 4 teaches: “fatigue strength is 380 MPa”. This is also shown in Table 5 – see page 59 of Kasuya Original Document for No.35. Therefore, Kasuya teaches the fatigue strength of more than 350 MPa as required by the claim.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodama in view of Bae, by adding the teachings of the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more, as taught by Kasuya, in order to improve resistance to fatigue failure at the welded portion, increase durability of the welded structure, and provide a greater fatigue design margin, and improve reliability.
Regarding claim 4, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Kodama also discloses
wherein the base material (two sheets of base material 12 and 14, Kodama Fig.1) has a thickness of 1.0 to 2.0 mm (Kodama Par.0092 discloses: “the plate thickness of the base material can be set to 1.0 mm or more and 3.6 mm 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 face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.0 mm, which lies inside the range of 1.0 mm or more and 3.6 mm or less disclosed by the prior art, and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.).
Regarding claim 7, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Kodama also discloses wherein the welding material comprises, by weight%, (Kodama Par.0027 discloses: “wherein the weld metal comprises”)
0.06 to 0.1% of C (Kodama Par.0027 discloses 0.03 ≤ C ≤ 0.25. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.06 to 0.1% of C, which lies inside the range of 0.03 to 0.25% of C disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.04 to 0.2% of Si (Kodama Par.0027 discloses 0.01 ≤ Si ≤ 2.00. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.04 to 0.2% of Si, which lies inside the range of 0.01 to 2.00% of Si disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
1.6 to 1.9% of Mn (Kodama Par.0027 discloses 0.5 ≤ Mn ≤ 3.0. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 1.6 to 1.9% of Mn, which lies inside the range of 0.5 to 3.0% of Mn disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.5 to 1.6% of Cr (Kodama Par.0028 discloses 0.1 ≤ Cr ≤ 2.0. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.5 to 1.6% of Cr, which lies inside the range of 0.1 to 2.0% of Cr disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.1 to 0.6% of Mo (Kodama Par.0028 discloses 0.005 ≤ Mo ≤ 0.5. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.6% of Mo, which overlaps the range of 0.005 to 0.5% of Mo disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.), and
a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Kodama Par.0027 discloses: “the balance being Fe and unavoidable impurities”).
Regarding claim 9, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Kodama does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the welding material is a solid wire or a metal cored wire.
Kasuya teaches
wherein the welding material is a solid wire or a metal cored wire (It is noted that the limitation “a solid wire or a metal cored wire” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Kasuya teaches solid wire because Kasuya Translated Document on page 7 paragraph 5 teaches “using a solid wire for welding”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya, by adding the teachings of the welding material is a solid wire, as taught by Kasuya, in order to provide a stable and uniform supply of alloying elements to the molten weld pool, and also provide a more homogeneous wire composition and more predictable transfer of alloying elements into the weld pool, thereby enabling more precise control of the chemical composition and resulting microstructure of the weld metal.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0388995 A1, newly cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), Kasuya (WO 2011037272 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Fujiyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0032931 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Kodama also discloses wherein the base material comprises, by wt%, (Kodama Par.0025 discloses: “wherein the base material comprises”)
0.02 to 0.08% of C (Kodama Par.0025 discloses 0.01 ≤ C ≤ 0.25. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.08% of C, which lies inside the range of 0.01 to 0.25% of C disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.5% of Si (Kodama Par.0025 discloses 0.01 ≤ Si ≤ 2.00. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5% of Si, which lies inside the range of 0.01 to 2.00% of Si disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.8 to 1.8% of Mn (Kodama Par.0025 discloses 0.05 ≤ Mn ≤ 3.0. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.8% of Mn, which lies inside the range of 0.05 to 3.00% of Mn disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.1% of Al (Kodama Par.0025 discloses 0.001 ≤ Al ≤ 0.4. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1% of Al, which lies inside the range of 0.001 to 0.4% of Al disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
P (Kodama Par.0080 discloses: “The balance is Fe and impurities. Here, the term “impurity” refers to a component contained in the raw material or a component incorporated in the process of production and not a component intentionally contained in the base material. The impurities include P and S.”),
S (Kodama Par.0080 discloses: “The balance is Fe and impurities. Here, the term “impurity” refers to a component contained in the raw material or a component incorporated in the process of production and not a component intentionally contained in the base material. The impurities include P and S.”),
0.01 to 0.12% of Ti (Kodama Par.0026 discloses 0.005 ≤ Ti ≤ 0.3. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.12% of Ti, which lies inside the range of 0.005 to 0.3% of Ti disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.01 to 0.05% of Nb (Kodama Par.0026 discloses 0.005 ≤ Nb ≤ 0.3. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.05% of Nb, which lies inside the range of 0.005 to 0.3% of Nb disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.), and
a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Kodama Par.0025 discloses “the balance being Fe and unavoidable impurities”).
Kodama does not explicitly disclose:
0.001 to to 0.02% of P,
0.001 to 0.01% of S,
0.001 to 0.01% of N
Fujiyama teaches a welded member (Fujiyama Abstract), wherein the base material (Steel plate A, Fujiyama Table 1 on page 6) comprises, by wt%,
0.02 to 0.08% of C (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.060% of C, which is within the claimed range),
0.01 to 0.5% of Si (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.240% of Si, which is within the claimed range),
0.8 to 1.8% of Mn (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 1.55% of Mn, which is within the claimed range),
0.01 to 0.1% of Al (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.039% of Al, which is within the claimed range),
0.001 to 0.02% of P (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.008% of P, which is within the claimed range),
0.001 to 0.01% of S (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.0024% of S, which is within the claimed range),
0.001 to 0.01% of N (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.0048% of N, which is within the claimed range),
0.01 to 0.12% of Ti (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.012% of Ti, which is within the claimed range),
0.01 to 0.05% of Nb (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.020% of Nb, which is within the claimed range), and
a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Fujiyama Par.0011 teaches: “a chemical composition of a base metal of the steel pipe containing, by mass % … and a balance of Fe and impurities”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the composition of the Kodama base material (see the Kodama steel plates 12 and 14 in Kodama Fig.1) with the composition of the Fujiyama base material (see the Fujiyama steel plate A in Fujiyama Table 1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing welded member having steel plate as base material. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 3, Kodama in view of Bae, Kasuya and Fujiyama teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 2, Fujiyama also teaches:
wherein the base material (Steel plate A, Fujiyama Table 1; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above) further comprises, at least one of Mo, Cr, V, Ni, and B [it is noted that the limitation “at least one of Mo, Cr, V, Ni, and B” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination] so that a total amount thereof is 1.5% by weight or less (Fujiyama Table 1 shows the steel plate A contains 0.010% of Mo, 0.15% of Cr, 0.02% of V, 0.42% of Ni and 0% of B, which gives the total amount thereof is less than 1.5% by weight as required by the claim).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0388995 A1, newly cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), Kasuya (WO 2011037272 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (KR 20080063161 A, newly cited, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 5, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein an interval of an overlapping portion between the two base materials is 0.5 mm or less (including 0 mm).
Suzuki teaches a welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two steel base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material (Suzuki Fig.4):
wherein an interval of an overlapping portion between the two base materials is 0.5 mm or less (including 0 mm) (Suzuki Translated Document on page 12 lines 1-3 teaches an interval of an overlapping portion between the two base materials is 0.5 mm, and as shown in Suzuki Fig.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya, by adding the teachings of interval of an overlapping portion between the two base materials is 0.5 mm, as taught by Suzuki, in order to facilitate penetration of molten weld metal into the joint interface, accommodate dimensional variations between assembled sheets, and ensure reliable fusion of both steel sheets; thereby, promoting weld quality while reducing the likelihood of incomplete fusion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0388995 A1, newly cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), Kasuya (WO 2011037272 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0190597 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Kodama also discloses:
wherein the weld bead comprises a microstructure of at least one of acicular ferrite and bainite (Kodama Par.0107 discloses: “the structure of the weld metal is a mixed structure of martensite, bainite and ferrite.”).
Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya does not explicitly teach:
the acicular ferrite and bainite having an average effective grain size of 5 μm or less.
Hara teaches (Hara Table 5):
wherein the weld bead comprises a microstructure of at least one of acicular ferrite and bainite (Hara Table 5 on page 11 teaches acicular ferrite and bainite in microstructure form with the grain size of μm), the acicular ferrite and bainite having an average effective grain size of 5 μm or less (Hara Table 5 teaches the No.25 has the acicular ferrite and bainite having effective grain size of 4 μm, which is less than 5 μm as required by the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya, by adding the teachings of the acicular ferrite and bainite having an average effective grain size of 5 μm or less, as taught by Hara, in order to refine the microstructure of the welded portion. A refined acicular ferrite and bainite having an average effective grain size of 5 μm or less increases the density of grain boundaries, which impedes crack initiation and crack propagation within the weld metal. Thus, the welded joint would improve fatigue strength, toughness, and resistance to brittle fracture. Therefore, increase the durability and structural reliability of the fillet welded joint.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0388995 A1, newly cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), Kasuya (WO 2011037272 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Ikeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0129348 A1, hereinafter Ikeda’348, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 7, Kodama also discloses wherein the welding material further comprises, by weight %,
0.40% or less of Ni (Kodama Par.0028 discloses 0.1 ≤ Ni ≤ 3.0. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of 0.40% or less of Ni, which overlaps the range of 0.1 to 3.0% of Ni disclosed by the prior art and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.),
0.50% or less of Cu (Kodama Table 2 on page 8 discloses 0.50% or less of Cu), and
0.20% or less Al (Kodama Par.0027 discloses 0.001 ≤ Al ≤ 0.15, which is within the claimed range.).
Kodama in view of Bae and Kasuya does not explicitly teach:
0.015% or less of P,
0.01% or less of S
Ikeda’348 teaches a welded member (Ikeda’348 Abstract & Table 2) wherein the welding material comprises, by weight% (Ikeda’348 Table 2 on page 6 teaches: “Chemical Composition of Weld Metal (mass %)”),
0.015% or less of P (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.008% of P, which is less than 0.015% as required by the claim),
0.01% or less of S (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.001% of S, which is less than 0.01% as required by the claim),
0.40% or less of Ni (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0% of Ni, which is less than 0.40% as required by the claim),
0.50% or less of Cu (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0% of Cu, which is less than 0.50% as required by the claim), and
0.20% or less Al (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.008% of Al, which is less than 0.20% as required by the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the composition of the Kodama welding material with the composition of the Ikeda’348 welding material (see the weld metal No.36 in Ikeda’348 Table 2), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing a weld material having a remainder of Fe and unavoidable impurities for welding steel plates. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Matsuda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0378420 A1) discloses a lap fillet arc welded joint including: a first steel sheet and a second steel sheet which are overlapped each other, the first steel sheet and the second steel sheet each having a tensile strength of 950 MPa or more; and a weld metal which extends along a corner formed by an upper surface of the first steel sheet and an end surface of the second steel sheet.
Fukuda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0206593 A1) discloses a MIG welded joint between aluminum and steel members is obtained by overlapping the aluminum member and the steel member each other and performing MIG welding using a filler wire.
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 06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights