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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeniya (US20160008906) in view of Haiwara (US5283419).
Regarding claim 1, Zeniya teaches an arc welded joint ([0034] welded joint) having:
a slag-coverage area ratio S RATIO (%) of 15% or less ([0118-0120] slag area ratio; 10% or less was rated as acceptable level) calculated by using equation (1):
S RATIO=100×S SLAG /S BEAD (1), where:
S BEAD (mm2) is a weld bead surface area defined as an area of a surface of a weld bead formed by performing arc welding on a steel sheet and
S SLAG (mm2) is a slag surface area defined as an area of a region of the weld bead surface area S BEAD that is covered with slag ([0119] Slag area ratio=Total slag area ÷ Total image area×100(%), where image area is the bead surface),and
a weld bead width ratio WRATIO (%) of 100% ([00124] a min and max width being the same such that W RATIO is 100%) as calculated by using equation (2):
W RATIO=100×W MIN /W MAX (2), where:
W MAX (mm) is a maximum value of a weld bead width in a direction perpendicular to a welding line of the weld bead, and
W MIN (mm) is a minimum value of the weld bead width ([00124] acceptable product being not an irregular bead, where an irregular bead has an uneven width, which is understood to mean a regular bead has an even width, taken to have Wmin=Wmax)
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 of "a weld bead width ratio Wratrio (%) of 60% or more"
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 weld bead width ratio of Zeniya from 100% to 60% or more 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.)
Zeniya is silent on a cleaning region, in which oxides formed on a surface of the steel sheet have been removed by the arc welding, is adjacent to a weld bead toe, and a minimum value MMIN (mm) of a distance M (mm) in the direction perpendicular to the welding line between an outer edge of the cleaning region and the weld bead toe is 0.5 mm or more.
PNG
media_image1.png
480
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Haiwara
Haiwara teaches a cleaning region (CW), in which oxides formed on a surface of the steel sheet have been removed by the arc welding (Col. 3 lines 35-45 portion from which an oxide layer has been removed) and a minimum value MMIN (mm) of a distance M (mm) in the direction perpendicular to the welding line between an outer edge of the cleaning region and the weld bead toe is 0.5 mm or more (Fig. 4 C.W. shown to range from approximately 2.5mm or more which gives the distance between the weld bead toe and outer edge of the cleaning region to be at least 0.75 mm or more, distance shown in annotated Fig. 4; Col. 3 lines 50-60 30% above which the width of cleaning is wider than the width of beads and to 80% below; where Haiwara teaches a minimum sufficient width is 0.6mm).
Zeniya and Haiwara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya to incorporate the teachings of Haiwara to have a cleaning region such that the distance between the toe of the welding line and the edge of the cleaning region is greater than 0.5mm as such configurations allow for a reduced consumption in electrode and obtains a weld bead that is not shallow (Haiwara Col. 3 lines 45-58).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeniya (US20160008906) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Haiwara (US5283419) and in further view of Williams (US 2697160).
Regarding claim 3, Zeniya teaches an arc welding method comprising:
transferring a welding current from a welding wire supported by a contact tip to a steel sheet to form an arc welded joint between the steel sheet and another steel member ([0219-0223] arc welding to form a welded joint of two steel sheets),
the arc welded joint ([0034] welded joint) having:
a slag-coverage area ratio S RATIO (%) of 15% or less ([0118-0119] slag area ratio; 10% or less was rated as acceptable level) calculated by using equation (1):
S RATIO=100×S SLAG /S BEAD (1), where:
S BEAD (mm2) is a weld bead surface area defined as an area of a surface of a weld bead formed by performing arc welding on a steel sheet and
S SLAG (mm2) is a slag surface area defined as an area of a region of the weld bead surface area S BEAD that is covered with slag ([0119] Slag area ratio=Total slag area ÷ Total image area×100(%), where image area is the bead surface),and
a weld bead width ratio WRATIO (%) of 100% ([00124] a min and max width being the same such that W RATIO is 100%) as calculated by using equation (2):
W RATIO=100×W MIN /W MAX (2), where:
W MAX (mm) is a maximum value of a weld bead width in a direction perpendicular to a welding line of the weld bead, and
W MIN (mm) is a minimum value of the weld bead width ([00124] acceptable product being not an irregular bead, where an irregular bead has an uneven width, which is understood to mean a regular bead has an even width, taken to have Wmin=Wmax).
Regarding the limitation in claim 3 of "a weld bead width ratio Wratrio (%) of 60% or more"
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 weld bead width ratio of Zeniya from 100% to 60% or more 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.)
Zeniya is silent on the arc welding is performed with reverse polarity, a cleaning region, in which oxides formed on a surface of the steel sheet have been removed by the arc welding, is adjacent to a weld bead toe, and a minimum value MMIN (mm) of a distance M (mm) in the direction perpendicular to the welding line between an outer edge of the cleaning region and the weld bead toe is 0.5 mm or more.
Haiwara teaches a cleaning region (CW), in which oxides formed on a surface of the steel sheet have been removed by the arc welding (Col. 3 lines 35-45 portion from which an oxide layer has been removed) and a minimum value MMIN (mm) of a distance M (mm) in the direction perpendicular to the welding line between an outer edge of the cleaning region and the weld bead toe is 0.5 mm or more (Fig. 4 C.W. shown to range from approximately 2.5mm or more which gives the distance between the weld bead toe and outer edge of the cleaning region to be at least 0.75 mm or more, distance shown in annotated Fig. 4 Col. 3 lines 50-60 30% above which the width of cleaning is wider than the width of beads and to 80% below; where Haiwara teaches a minimum sufficient width is 0.6mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya to incorporate the teachings of Haiwara to have a cleaning region such that the distance between the toe of the welding line and the edge of the cleaning region is greater than 0.5mm as such configurations allow for a reduced consumption in electrode and obtains a weld bead that is not shallow (Haiwara Col. 3 lines 45-58).
Zeniya and Haiwara are silent on the arc welding is performed with reverse polarity.
Williams teaches the arc welding is performed with reverse polarity (Col. 1 lines 25-30 reverse polarity welding).
Zeniya, Haiwara, and Williams are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya and Haiwara to incorporate the teachings of Williams to perform arc welding using reverse polarity arc welding as reverse polarity welding is known to clean up the weld and adjacent area which advantageously cleans the weld bead and saves time from subsequently cleaning the weld bead (Williams Col. 1 lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 11, Zeniya teaches arc welding method according to claim 3, wherein at least one of following conditions (A) and (B) is satisfied:
(A) the arc welding is performed in the presence of Ar gas as a shielding gas, and
(B) the welding wire is a solid wire ([0033] welding wire is solid wire).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeniya (US20160008906), Haiwara (US5283419), and Williams (US 2697160) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US6156998A).
Regarding claim 5, Zeniya, Haiwara, and Williams teach the arc welding method according to claim 3, but are silent on wherein during the arc welding: a short circuit intermittently occurs between the steel sheet and the welding wire, and the short circuit occurs at an average short circuit frequency FAVE (Hz) of 20 Hz to 300 Hz with a maximum short circuit cycle TCYC (s) of 1.5 s or less.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Takahashi
PNG
media_image3.png
286
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Takahashi
Takahashi teaches a short circuit intermittently occurs between the steel sheet and the welding wire (Col. 4 lines 10-27 short circuiting based on distance between welding wire and workpiece), and
the short circuit occurs at an average short circuit frequency Fave (Hz) of 20 Hz to 300 Hz (Fig. 9 short circuit frequencies from 100 to 250Hz)
with a maximum short circuit cycle TCYC (s) of 15 s or less (Col. 4 lines 10-25 NR frequency of occurrence of short-circuiting. Fig. 5 short circuits 4-8 times per 1 sec, which indicates a short circuit cycle of 15 secs or less).
Regarding the limitation in claim 5 of "a maximum short circuit cycle TCYC (s) of 1.5 s or less"
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify maximum short circuit cycle of Takahashi from 15 secs or less to 1.5 secs or less 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.)
Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams, and Takahashi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya, Haiwara, and Williams to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi to have short circuity occur intermittently at particular frequencies and cycles as short circuiting periodically is known to avoid weld defects such as undercuts and blowholes that are detrimental to a weld (Takahashi Col. 1 lines 10-30).
Regarding claim 13, Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams, Takahashi teach arc welding method according to claim 5, and Zeniya teaches wherein at least one of following conditions (A) and (B) is satisfied:
(A) the arc welding is performed in the presence of Ar gas as a shielding gas, and
(B) the welding wire is a solid wire ([0033] welding wire is solid wire).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeniya (US20160008906), Haiwara (US5283419), and Williams (US 2697160) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Koshiishi (US20070210048A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zeniya, Haiwara, and Williams teach the arc welding method according to claim 3, but are silent on wherein: the welding current is a pulse current, and
X (A·s/m) as calculated by using equation (3) satisfies a relational expression 50≤X≤250:
X=(I PEAK ×t PEAK /L)+(I PEAK +I BASE)×(t UP +t DOWN)/(2×L) (3), where:
IPEAK (A) is a peak current of the pulse current,
IBASE (A) is a base current of the pulse current,
tPEAK (ms) is a peak time of the pulse current,
tUP (ms) is a rise time of the pulse current,
tDOWN (ms) is a fall time of the pulse current, and
L (mm) is a distance between the steel sheet and the contact tip.
Koshiishi teaches the welding current is a pulse current ([0018] pulsed welding current), and
X (A·s/m) as calculated by using equation (3) satisfies a relational expression 50≤X≤250:
X=(I PEAK ×t PEAK /L)+(I PEAK +I BASE)×(t UP +t DOWN)/(2×L) (3), where:
IPEAK (A) is a peak current of the pulse current ([0018] peak current =300 to 700A),
IBASE (A) is a base current of the pulse current ([0018] base current =30 to 200A),
tPEAK (ms) is a peak time of the pulse current ([0018] peak period =0.3 to 5.0 ms),
tUP (ms) is a rise time of the pulse current ([0063-0064] upward slope period Tup1: not longer than 3 ms),
tDOWN (ms) is a fall time of the pulse current ([0065-0066] downward slope period Tdown: not longer than 6 ms), and
L (mm) is a distance between the steel sheet and the contact tip ([0089] 2-3mm arc length, being the equivalent of tip to sheet distance; where the above relationship is satisfied given the combination of ranges).
Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams and Koshiishi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya, Haiwara, and Williams to incorporate the teachings of Koshiishi to have a pulsed welding current that satisfies the relationship above as the relationship between peak current, base current, peak time, rise and fall time, and distance between the sheet and tip ensures smooth droplet transfers at high frequencies and greater control of the welding applied to a welding joint such that a stable arc is achieved (Koshiishi [0014]).
Regarding claim 15, Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams and Koshiishi teach arc welding method according to claim 7, and Zeniya teaches wherein at least one of following conditions (A) and (B) is satisfied:
(A) the arc welding is performed in the presence of Ar gas as a shielding gas, and
(B) the welding wire is a solid wire ([0033] welding wire is solid wire).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeniya (US20160008906), Haiwara (US5283419), Williams (US 2697160), and Takahashi (US6156998A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Koshiishi (US20070210048A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zeniya and Takahashi teach the arc welding method according to claim 5, but are silent on wherein: the welding current is a pulse current, and
X (A·s/m) as calculated by using equation (3) satisfies a relational expression 50≤X≤250:
X=(I PEAK ×t PEAK /L)+(I PEAK +I BASE)×(t UP +t DOWN)/(2×L) (3), where:
IPEAK (A) is a peak current of the pulse current,
IBASE (A) is a base current of the pulse current,
tPEAK (ms) is a peak time of the pulse current,
tUP (ms) is a rise time of the pulse current,
tDOWN (ms) is a fall time of the pulse current, and
L (mm) is a distance between the steel sheet and the contact tip.
Koshiishi teaches the welding current is a pulse current ([0018] pulsed welding current), and
X (A·s/m) as calculated by using equation (3) satisfies a relational expression 50≤X≤250:
X=(I PEAK ×t PEAK /L)+(I PEAK +I BASE)×(t UP +t DOWN)/(2×L) (3), where:
IPEAK (A) is a peak current of the pulse current ([0018] peak current =300 to 700A),
IBASE (A) is a base current of the pulse current ([0018] base current =30 to 200A),
tPEAK (ms) is a peak time of the pulse current ([0018] peak period =0.3 to 5.0 ms),
tUP (ms) is a rise time of the pulse current ([0063-0064] upward slope period Tup1: not longer than 3 ms),
tDOWN (ms) is a fall time of the pulse current ([0065-0066] downward slope period Tdown: not longer than 6 ms), and
L (mm) is a distance between the steel sheet and the contact tip ([0089] 2-3mm arc length, being the equivalent of tip to sheet distance; where the above relationship is satisfied given the combination of ranges).
It would have been obvious to have modified Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams, and Takahashi to incorporate the teachings of Koshiishi to have a pulsed welding current that satisfies the relationship above as the relationship between peak current, base current, peak time, rise and fall time, and distance between the sheet and tip ensures smooth droplet transfers at high frequencies and greater control of the welding applied to a welding joint such that a stable arc is achieved (Koshiishi [0014]).
Regarding claim 17, Zeniya, Haiwara, Williams, Takahashi and Koshiishi teach arc welding method according to claim 9, and Zeniya teaches wherein at least one of following conditions (A) and (B) is satisfied:
(A) the arc welding is performed in the presence of Ar gas as a shielding gas, and
(B) the welding wire is a solid wire ([0033] welding wire is solid wire).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Haiwara does not tech the limitations of “a minimum value MMIN (mm) of a distance M (mm) in the direction perpendicular to the welding line between an outer edge of the cleaning region and the weld bead toe is 0.5 mm or more” as previously presented in canceled claims 2 and 4, now incorporated into independent claims 1 and 3, applicant argues that, in Haiwara, “the starting point for the C.W. line appears to be at 1mm, in which case the distance "M" would be less than 0.5mm.” However in further consideration of Haiwara, in reference to Fig. 4, Haiwara teaches a desired relationship to the width of the cleaning width and the bead width to be “30% above which the width of cleaning is wider than the width of beads and to 80% below” in Col. 3 lines 50-60. So in view of Fig. 4, the minimum C.W. would not have started at 1mm as applicant suggested, as at that point the width of cleaning is not in the range of 30-80% wider than the width of the bead. Given that the bead width starts at 2.5mm in Fig. 4, any desired cleaning width as taught in Haiwara would be greater than 0.5mm, where Mmin of distance M would be understood to be 0.6 mm, which is found by having the cleaning width be at least 30% wider than a 2.5mm bead width. The total cleaning width would be 3.25mm in this situation, so M calculated as shown in annotated Fig. 4 would at least be 0.6mm, therefore the limitation remains rejected in view of Haiwara.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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 at (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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/9/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761