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 Objections Claims 21-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: The Claims refer to a claim 19; however, the independent claim in question is claim 20, as claim 19 2 was cancelled. 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. Claim (s) 20-21, 23-24, 26, 30-31, 33, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4952892 to Fu et al. (F1), in view of US 6,664,508 to Johnson et al. (J1) and “Metal Oxide Nanoparticle-Based Coating as a Catalyzer for A-TIG welding: Critical Raw Material Perspective,” to Balos et al. (B1) . In Re Claim 20 : F 1 teaches: A method for the manufacture of a welded joint comprising the following successive steps: Providing at least two metallic substrates wherein a first of the two metallic substrates is a steel substrate having a thickness of at least 50mm and is delimited by at least one sidewall, [Fig. 1, shows plates 1 and 2. Page 6, first four paragraphs, notes this is steel plates, with thickness such as 70, 75, 80, 90mm.] Welding of the at least two metallic substrates along the at least sidewall by narrow gap welding. [Pages 2-3, discussion of Non-Patent documents 1 and 4, notes narrow gap welding, Page 3, notes in the technical solution this is welding of plates across a narrow gap.] F1 is silent as to: A sidewall being coated, at least partially with a pre-coating comprising a titanate and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO 2 , SiO 2 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 0 3 , A1 2 0 3 , MoO 3 , Cr0 3 , CeO 2 ,La 2 0 3 and mixtures thereof . J1 teaches: When applying a weld, it can be desirable to apply a flux paste on the substrate, utilizing titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . This can be desirable to improve weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Welding method of F1, to incorporate a Titanate and transition metal oxide as taught by J1 with the expectation of improving weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] This would yield the limitation of titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . F1 as modified does not teach: The oxide is expressly a nanoparticulate. B1 teaches: When using a Weld with a flux of titanate and an oxide it can be desirable to utilize titanite nanoparticles as coatings when mixed with a solvent (such as acetone) with the advantage of improve the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 and J1, such that the oxide was a nanoparticulate as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully improving the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] This would yield the nanoparticulate is an oxide. In Re Claims 21, 23-24, 26, and 30 : F1 as modified in claim 20 teaches: The method as recited in claim 20, wherein: (Claim 21) the titanate is chosen from the group consisting of Na 2 Ti 3 O 7 , NaTiO 3 , K 2 TiO 3 , K 2 Ti 2 0 5 , MgTiO 3 , SrTiO 3 , BaTiO 3 , CaTiO 3 ,FeTiO 3 and ZnTiO 4 and mixtures thereof. [J1, notes the oxide can be Na 2 Ti 3 O 7 , NaTiO 3 , K 2 TiO 3 , K 2 Ti 2 0 5 , MgTiO 3 , SrTiO 3 , BaTiO 3 , CaTiO 3 ,FeTiO 3 and ZnTiO 4 ] (Claim 23) percentage of the nanoparticulate oxide pre-coating is below or equal to 80 wt%. [J1 discloses the oxide can be up to 75 wt% of the mixture, in Col. 4, ll. 16-44.] (Claim 24) a percentage of the nanoparticulate oxide in the pre-coating is above or equal to 10 wt%. [J1 discloses the oxide can be up to 75 wt% of the mixture, in Col. 4, ll. 16-44.] (Claim 26) the percentage of titanate is above or equal to 45 wt%. [J1, Col. 4, ll. 16-44 notes the titanate percentage should be preferably 45-55 wt%.] (Claim 30) the narrow gap welding is done with one welding technique selected among submerged arc welding, gas metal arc welding, and gas tungsten arc welding. [F1, Page 4, notes submerged arc welding is listed among the weld methods.] In Re Claim 31 : F1 teaches: A method for the manufacture of a substrate comprising the following successive steps: Providing a steel substrate having a thickness of at least 50mm and being delimited by at least one sidewall, [Fig. 1, shows plates 1 and 2. Page 6, first four paragraphs, notes this is steel plates, with thickness such as 70, 75, 80, 90mm.] F1 is silent as to: Depositing at least partially on the sidewall, a pre-coating solution including a titanate and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO 2 , SiO 2 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 0 3 , A1 2 0 3 , MoO 3 , Cr0 3 , CeO 2 ,La 2 0 3 and mixtures thereof . J1 teaches: When applying a weld, it can be desirable to apply a flux paste on the substrate, utilizing titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . This can be desirable to improve weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Welding method of F1, to incorporate a Titanate and transition metal oxide as taught by J1 with the expectation of improving weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] This would yield the limitation of titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . F1 as modified does not teach: The oxide is expressly a nanoparticulate. B1 teaches: When using a Weld with a flux of titanate and an oxide it can be desirable to utilize titanite nanoparticles as coatings when mixed with a solvent (such as acetone) with the advantage of improve the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 and J1, such that the oxide was a nanoparticulate as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully improving the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] This would yield the nanoparticulate is an oxide. In Re Claims 33 : F1 as modified in claim 31 teaches: The method as recited in claim 31, wherein: (Claim 33) the pre-coating solution further includes a solvent. [B1, notes the particulates can be mixed with a solvent such as acetone, on Page 8, section 4.] In Re Claim 38 : F1 teaches: A Steel substrate comprising: A steel substrate having a thickness of at least 50mm and being delimited by at least one sidewall, [Fig. 1, shows plates 1 and 2. Page 6, first four paragraphs, notes this is steel plates, with thickness such as 70, 75, 80, 90mm.] F1 is silent as to: The sidewall is at least partially coated with a pre-coating solution including a titanate and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO 2 , SiO 2 , ZrO 2 , Y 2 0 3 , A1 2 0 3 , MoO 3 , Cr0 3 , CeO 2 ,La 2 0 3 and mixtures thereof . J1 teaches: When applying a weld, it can be desirable to apply a flux paste on the substrate, utilizing titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . This can be desirable to improve weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Welding method of F1, to incorporate a Titanate and transition metal oxide as taught by J1 with the expectation of improving weld penetration and depth, and reducing heat to heat penetration. [Col. 3, ll. 3-63.] This would yield the limitation of titanate flux, and a transition metal oxide such as TiO 2 . F1 as modified does not teach: The oxide is expressly a nanoparticulate. B1 teaches: When using a Weld with a flux of titanate and an oxide it can be desirable to utilize titanite nanoparticles as coatings when mixed with a solvent (such as acetone) with the advantage of improve the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 and J1, such that the oxide was a nanoparticulate as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully improving the penetration of the welds. [Pages 9-10, Section Discussion.] This would yield the nanoparticulate is an oxide. Claim(s) 25, 28, 32, 34, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over F1, J1, and B1 as applied to claim s 20 and 31 above, and further in view of US 23004/0009300 to Shimakura et al. (S1) . In Re Claim 25 : F1 as modified in claim 20 teaches: The method as recited in claim 20, wherein the oxide is a nanoparticulate. F1 as modified does not teach: The nanoparticulates are between 5 and 60 nm. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of the nano particles including values such in the range of 5 to 60 nm. [Page 9, ¶106.] In Re Claim 28 : F1 as modified in claim 20 teaches: The method as recited in claim 20, wherein there is a precoating. F1 as modified does not teach: The precoating includes a binder. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of a binding. [Page 14, ¶216] In Re Claim 32 : F1 as modified in claim 31 teaches: The method as recited in claim 31, wherein the precoating is deposited. F1 as modified does not teach: The precoating is applied by spin coating, spray coating, dip coating, or brush coating. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of the precoating is applied by spray coating, dip coating, and brush coating. [Page 7, ¶70, 76.] In Re Claim 34 : F1 as modified in claim 31 teaches: The method as recited in claim 31, wherein the precoating includes nanoparticulate oxide. F1 as modified does not teach: The precoating is a solution including 1 to 200 g/L of nano particulate oxide. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of the is a solution including 0.1 to 90 g/L of nano particulate oxide. [Page 9, ¶106.] In Re Claim 36 : F1 as modified in claim 31 teaches: The method as recited in claim 31, wherein the pre coating is present. F1 as modified does not teach: The precoating is a solution including a binder precursor. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of the precoating is applied with a binder. [Page 14, ¶216.] In Re Claim 37 : F1 as modified in claim 31 teaches: The method as recited in claim 31, wherein the precoating is deposited. F1 as modified does not teach: The precoating includes a drying the steel substrate obtained by the depositing step. S1 teaches: When applying a coating as a weld primer, said primer including oxides such as TiO 2 can be in sizes such as 3nm to 1000 nm. [Page 9, ¶106] should provide values of said oxide in a range of 0.1 to 80 g/L. the pre-coating should include a binder, [Page 14, ¶216.], said coating should be applied by a spray coating, dip coating or brush coating, and include a drying step. [Page 7, ¶70, 76]. These are known in the art values for use in the art of flux/precoating’s applied as weld primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, with improved the conductivity and improved particle size to improve layering. [Page 5-6, ¶57.] I t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of F1 to utilize the wild primer coating guidance of S1 with regards to oxide rates, sizes, binders, and application methods/drying steps as taught by S1,with the expectation of successfully improve the application of the weld coating, as well as the layering of the primers. [Page 1, ¶7, 9-10, Page 5-6, ¶57.] This would yield the limitation of the precoating includes a drying step after the precoating. [Page 7, ¶70, 76.] Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 22, 27, 29, and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner notes the prior art indicated does not provide for a specific thickness of a precoating of a nm thickness of titanate and nanoparticulate oxides, not the solution rate of titanate, or specific diameter of the titanate, or the percentage of the binder in said coating. These all affect the rate of application of the coating/flux as well as the size of the titanate, to impact the effectiveness or efficiency of the precoating application or impact on the weld. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,339,209 to Kotecki discloses flux on stainless teel, for welding, utilizing titanate and an oxide for weld. CN 102151955 to Zhu et al. teaches applying a coating of flux in narrow gap on the surfaces as a layer during narrow gap welding. JP 2017154156 to Nakamura et al. teaches applying a weld in narrow gap with weld and bevel. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9968 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8648 . 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. /JOSHUA R BEEBE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745