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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 08/07/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 10-15 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the independent claim 1 – see the Remarks dated 08/07/2025 on pages 6-10)
First, Applicant argued that the prior art Ikeda does not teach obtaining the reinforcing welding method of a root portion because Ikeda is silent and does not teach or suggest the R value (it is noted that the R value is the specific resistance) of the welding material, see details in the Remarks dated 08/07/2025 on pages 6-8.
Second, Applicant argued that the prior art Ikeda does not teach or suggest the average fatigue strength of the weld bead and the root portion reinforcing welding metal, see details in the Remarks dated 08/07/2025 on pages 8-9.
Finally, Applicant argued that the prior arts Bae, Fujiyama, Hara, Ikeda’348 do not teach or suggest a “welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material, the welded member having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof, the welded member, comprising: a base material, a weld bead and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion, wherein the base material has a tensile strength of 780MPa or more, the weld bead has a toe angle of 160° or more, and the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average Vickers hardness of 280 to 320 Hv and an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more” as recited in claim 1, see details in the Remarks dated 08/07/2025 on pages 9-10.
The Examiner’s Response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., the R value, the percentage of protective gas by volume of CO2 and Ar in order to satisfy the range of the R value [see Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 of the Remarks dated 08/07/2025]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that the independent claim 1 does not require the R value nor the percentage of protective gas by volume of CO2 and Ar in order to satisfy the range of the R value. It is further noted that the R value and the percentage of protective gas by volume of CO2 and Ar in order to satisfy the range of the R value appear to be required in the independent claim 10; however, the claim 10 is withdrawn in the Applicant’s reply filed on 04/21/2025 in response to the Examiner’s Election/Restriction requirement dated 03/26/2025. In this case, Ikeda in view of Bae properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claim 1 since the R value, and the percentage of protective gas by volume of CO2 and Ar in order to satisfy the range of the R value are not claimed in the independent claim 1. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below for the detailed rejections of the independent claim 1.
Second, in response to Applicant’s argument that “Ikeda does not teach or suggest the average fatigue strength of the weld bead and the root portion reinforcing welding metal of the present invention at all”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 shows the average fatigue strength of 400 MPa, which is more than 350 MPa as required by claim 1. Examiner would like to further note that Ikeda Translated Abstract discloses: “when the maximum and minimum values of the Vickers hardness in a range extending from the weld toe section to a base material are HU and HL, respectively, at a position which, in the plate thickness direction, is 0.2 mm from the steel plate surface on the weld toe section side.”, and Ikeda Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 5 further discloses: “In FIG. 1, “Vickers hardness measurement range” The Vickers hardness test described in JIS Z 2244 is performed at a measurement interval of 0.2 mm and a measurement load of 200 g, and the maximum value of the Vickers hardness may be HU and the minimum value may be HL. The Vickers hardness of the base material is substantially uniform over the thickness direction, the length direction, and the width direction of the steel plate.”. Therefore, according to Ikeda, the Vickers hardness test described in JIS Z 2244 is performed at measurement interval of 0.2 mm across thickness direction. Thus, the weld toe 17 of the weld metal 16 and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion is also included in the test. Because if the weld toe 17 of the weld metal 16 and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion is not included in the test, the Vickers hardness would only be measured at the base material 12; if the Vickers hardness is measured at the base material 12 only, the Vickers hardness cannot be varied such wide range between the maximum and the minimum values of the Vickers hardness as shown in Table 3 of Ikeda since Ikeda Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 5 discloses: “In FIG. 1, “The Vickers hardness of the base material is substantially uniform over the thickness direction, the length direction, and the width direction of the steel plate.”. Therefore, the weld toe 17 of the weld metal 16 and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion is also included in the Vickers hardness test. It is further noted that the average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv is obtained by calculating the average value based on the disclosed maximum value of Vickers hardness (HU) of 350 Hv for No.8 and the disclosed minimum value of Vickers hardness (HL) of 250 Hv for No.8 as shown in Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8. Therefore, No.8 has an average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv from calculation, which is inside of the claimed range. Since the weld toe 17 of the weld metal 16 and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion is also included in the test, as explained previously, the average fatigue strength shown in Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 is also the average fatigue strength of the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion. Therefore, Ikeda properly discloses the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv obtained by calculation from the disclosed minimum value of Vickers hardness and the disclosed maximum value of Vickers hardness, and an average fatigue strength of 400 MPa (it is noted that the limitation “350 MPa or more” as recited in claim 1 is in alternative form; in this case, Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 shows the fatigue strength of 400 MPa, which is more than 350 MPa as required by claim 1).
Next, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the prior art Bae does not teach or suggest a “welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material, the welded member having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof, the welded member, comprising: a base material, a weld bead and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion, wherein the base material has a tensile strength of 780MPa or more, the weld bead has a toe angle of 160° or more, and the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average Vickers hardness of 280 to 320 Hv and an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more” as recited in claim 1, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the primary reference Ikeda discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including a welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material, the welded member having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof, the welded member, comprising: a base material, a weld bead and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion, wherein the base material has a tensile strength of 780MPa or more, and the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv and an average fatigue strength of 400 MPa. The primary reference Ikeda further discloses the weld has a toe angle of 155o instead of 160o or more as required by the claim. Thus, the primary reference Ikeda does not disclose the weld bead has a toe angle of 160o or more. The secondary reference Bae is applied to teach the weld bead has a toe angle of 160o or more. Since both references are directed to the same field, which is a welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two steel base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine them, for at least, the benefit of increasing the fatigue properties of the welded members, as recognized by Bae because 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) below in the rejection of claim 1.
Finally, in response to Applicant’s arguments that the prior arts Fujiyama, Hara, Ikeda’348 do not teach or suggest a “welded member obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials and performing fillet welding using a welding material, the welded member having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof, the welded member, comprising: a base material, a weld bead and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion, wherein the base material has a tensile strength of 780MPa or more, the weld bead has a toe angle of 160° or more, and the weld bead and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion have an average Vickers hardness of 280 to 320 Hv and an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more” as recited in claim 1, Examiner would like to note that the independent claim 1 is taught by the combination of Ikeda’404 and Bae, Examiner did not apply teachings of the prior arts Fujiyama, Hara, and Ikeda’348 in the rejection of the independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior arts Fujiyama, Hara, Ikeda’348 with respect to the independent claim 1, are moot.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (WO 2018159404 A1, previously cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses a welded member (welded member, Ikeda annotated Fig.1 below) obtained by overlapping a portion of two base materials (two steel plates: steel plate 11 and steel plate 12, Ikeda Fig.1) and performing fillet welding using a welding material (“welding wires”, Ikeda Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 6), the welded member (welded member, Ikeda annotated Fig.1 below) having excellent welded portion fatigue strength thereof, the welded member (welded member, Ikeda annotated Fig.1 below), comprising:
a base material (base material is steel, two base materials include steel plate 11 and steel plate 12, Ikeda Fig.1), a weld bead (weld metal 16, Ikeda Fig.1) (Ikeda Translated Document on page 3 lines 1-2 discloses: “Reference numeral 16 is a weld metal (bead (weld line)) by fillet arc welding”) and reinforcing welding metal of a root portion (root portion, Ikeda annotated Fig.1 below),
wherein the base material (base material is steel, two base materials include steel plate 11 and steel plate 12, Ikeda Fig.1) has a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more (Ikeda Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph discloses the tensile strength of the base material is 780 MPa or more, specifically, Ikeda Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph discloses: “At least two steel plates 12 on the weld toe side are high-strength steel plates in the two steel plates constituting the overlapped fillet arc welded joint. In this specification, “high strength” refers to a case where the tensile strength TS is 780 MPa or more”),
the weld bead (weld metal 16, Ikeda Fig.1) has a toe angle of 155o instead of 160o or more as required by the claim (Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 shows the angle is 155o), and
the weld bead (weld metal 16, Ikeda Fig.1) and the reinforcing welding metal in the root portion (root portion, Ikeda annotated Fig.1 below) have an average Vickers hardness of 280 to 320 Hv (Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 shows the maximum value of Vickers hardness (HU) is 350 Hv for No.8 and the minimum value Vickers hardness (HL) is 250 Hv for No.8; therefore, No.8 has an average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv, which is inside of the claimed range) and an average fatigue strength of 350 MPa or more (it is noted that the limitation “350 MPa or more” is in alternative form; in this case, Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8 shows the fatigue strength of 400 MPa, which is more than 350 MPa as required by the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
730
1370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ikeda does not disclose:
the toe angle of 160o 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_image3.png
299
390
media_image3.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 Ikeda, 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].
Examiner’s Note regarding the rejection of claim 1: the average Vickers hardness of 300 Hv is obtained by calculating the average value based on the disclosed maximum value of Vickers hardness (HU) of 350 Hv for No.8 and the disclosed minimum value of Vickers hardness (HL) of 250 Hv for No.8 as shown in Ikeda Table 3 – Test No.8.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Ikeda also discloses:
wherein the base material (base material is steel, two base materials include steel plate 11 and steel plate 12, Ikeda Fig.1) has a thickness of 1.0 to 5.0 mm instead of 1.0 to 2.0 mm as required by the claim (Ikeda Translated Document on page 3 – fourth paragraph discloses: “The plate thickness of the steel plates 11 and 12 is not particularly limited. For example, the effect of the present invention can be effectively obtained by setting the plate thickness in the range of 1 mm to 5 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the base material of Ikeda from between 1.0 mm to 5.0 mm to between 1.0 to 2.0 mm since it has been held that “[i]n 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). Further, Ikeda discloses the plate thickness of the steel plates 11 and 12 is not particularly limited and can be set effectively [Ikeda Translated Document on page 3 – fourth paragraph].
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Ikeda also discloses:
wherein an interval of an overlapping portion between the two base materials (two base materials include steel plate 11 and steel plate 12, Ikeda Fig.1) is 0.5 mm or less (including 0 mm) (Ikeda Fig.1 shows the interval of the overlapping portion between the two base materials is 0 mm, i.e., Ikeda Fig.1 shows no space between the upper steel plate 11 and the lower steel plate 12).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, Ikeda also discloses:
wherein the welding material (“welding wires”, Ikeda Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 6) is a solid wire (Ikeda Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 6 discloses the welding wires are solid wires, specifically, Ikeda Translated Document on page 6 – second paragraph from the bottom of page 6 discloses: “All the welding wires used were MAG welding solid wires with a diameter of 1.2 mm”) 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 given patentable weight during examination].
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (WO 2018159404 A1, previously cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), and further in view of Fujiyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0032931 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the base material comprises, by wt%,
0.02 to 0.08% of C, 0.01 to 0.5% of Si, 0.8 to 1.8% of Mn, 0.01 to 0.1% of Al, 0.001 to 0.02% of P, 0.001 to 0.01% of S, 0.001 to 0.01% of N, 0.01 to 0.12% of Ti, 0.01 to 0.05% of Nb, and a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities.
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 Ikeda base material (see the Ikeda steel plates 11 and 12 in Ikeda 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, Ikeda in view of Bae 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (WO 2018159404 A1, previously cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), and further in view of Hara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0190597 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the weld bead comprises a microstructure of at least one of acicular ferrite and bainite, 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 substitute Ikeda weld bead grain size and composition with the Hara grain size and composition, 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 deposition for welding steel plates. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (WO 2018159404 A1, hereinafter Ikeda’404, previously cited) in view of Bae et al. (KR 20160077325 A, previously cited), and further in view of Ikeda et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0129348 A1, hereinafter Ikeda’348, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda’404 in view of Bae teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the welding material comprises, by weight%,
0.06 to 0.1% of C, 0.04 to 0.2% of Si, 1.6 to 1.9% of Mn, 0.5 to 1.6% of Cr, 0.1 to 0.6% of Mo, and a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities.
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 %)”),
0.06 to 0.1% of C (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.10% of C, which falls inside of the claimed range),
0.04 to 0.2% of Si (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.19% of Si, which falls inside of the claimed range),
1.6 to 1.9% of Mn (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 1.65% of Mn, which falls inside of the claimed range),
0.5 to 1.6% of Cr (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing 0.5% of Cr, which falls inside of the claimed range),
0.1 to 0.6% of Mo (Ikeda’348 Table 2 teaches the chemical composition of the weld metal No.36 containing to 0.2% of Mo, which falls inside of the claimed range), and
a remainder of Fe and other unavoidable impurities (Ikeda’348 Abstract teaches: “A welding method includes performing welding to form a weld metal consisting essentially of, in mass % … and a remainder of Fe and unavoidable 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 Ikeda’404 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).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda in view of Bae and Ikeda’404 teaches the welded member as set forth in claim 7, Ikeda’404 also teaches:
wherein the welding material further comprises, by weight % (Ikeda’348 Table 2 on page 6 teaches: “Chemical Composition of Weld Metal (mass %)”, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 7 above),
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).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ahn et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0258219 A1) discloses a high-strength steel plate having acicular ferrite and bainite as a main microstructure and an austenite/martensite (M & A) as a second phase under the control of a cooling rate above the austenite transformation temperature.
Ichimiya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0173743 A1) discloses a weld joint with an excellent Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) property is produced with a weld metal, using a steel plate as a base metal.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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, 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 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 09/25/2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761