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 statements (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the nanoparticles” in claim 18, line 1 should read as “the nanoparticles of the nanoparticulate oxide”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 16-17, 19-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katiyar (US 20140124482 A1, cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A03).
Regarding claim 14, Katiyar teaches a flux-cored wire (“cored electrode” [Claim 1]) comprising:
a sheath (“includes a metal sheath” [Claim 1]); and a flux (“fill composition” [0010]) filling the sheath (“metal sheath that surrounds the fill composition in the core of the sheath” [0010]), the flux including a titanate (“fill composition includes… a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]) and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]), SiO2, ZrO2, Y203, a1203, MoO3, Cr03, CeO2, La2O3 and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) wherein a percentage of the nanoparticulate oxide (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract]) in the flux (“fill composition” [0010]) is below or equal to 80 wt.% (“general formulation of the fill composition (weight percent)… is set forth” [0024] in Table 1 which shows weight percent of TiO.sub.2 between 2-50% [0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) wherein a percentage of the nanoparticulate oxide (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract]) in the flux (“fill composition” [0010]) is above or equal to 10% (“general formulation of the fill composition (weight percent)… is set forth” [0024] in Table 1 which shows weight percent of TiO.sub.2 between 2-50% [0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) wherein a percentage of titanate (“fill composition includes… a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]) in the flux (“fill composition” [0010]) is above or equal to 45 wt.% “general formulation of the fill composition (weight percent)… is set forth” [0024] in Table 1 which shows weight percent of “sodium-silico-titanate compound” between 1-55% [0024]).
Regarding claim 20, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) wherein a diameter of the titanate (“fill composition includes… a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]) is between 1 and 40µm (“average particle size of the sodium-silico-titanate compound after sizing is typically less than 40 mesh and more typically about 50-200 mesh” [0032]; Instant specification discloses that “325 mesh correspond[s] to 44µm” [pg. 1, lines 23-24] so 50-200 mesh corresponds to 6.77-27.1µm which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 21, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) wherein the sheath (“includes a metal sheath” [Claim 1]) is made of steel (“metal sheath primarily includes iron and can include one or more other elements such as… carbon” [0016]; A compound containing iron and carbon is construed as steel).
Regarding claim 22, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) further comprising microparticulate compounds (“fill composition includes… slag forming agent” [Abstract]) selected from the group consisting of microparticulate oxides (“Non-limiting examples of such slag forming agents include metal oxides (e.g., aluminum oxide, boron oxide, calcium oxide, chromium oxide, iron oxide, magnesium oxide, manganese oxide, niobium oxide, potassium oxide, sodium oxide, tin oxide, vanadium oxide, zirconium oxide, etc.), metal carbonates (e.g., calcium carbonate, etc.)” [0011]) and microparticulate fluorides (“…and/or metal fluorides (e.g., barium fluoride, bismuth fluoride, calcium fluoride, potassium fluoride, sodium fluoride, Teflon, etc.).” [0011]).
Regarding claim 23, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above) wherein the microparticulate compounds (“slag forming agent” [Abstract]) are selected from the group consisting of CeO2, Na20 (“sodium oxide” [0011]), Na202, NaBiO3, NaF (“sodium fluoride” [0011]), CaF2 (“calcium fluoride” [0011]), cryolite (Na3a1F6) and mixtures thereof.
Regarding claim 25, Katiyar teaches a method for the manufacture (“Cored electrodes are manufactured by…” [0009]) of a flux-cored wire (“cored electrode” [Claim 1]) comprising the successive following steps:
mixing (“by mixing up the ingredients of the core material” [0009]) at least a titanate (“fill composition includes… a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]) and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]), SiO2, ZrO2, Y203, a1203, MoO3, Cr03, CeO2, La203 and mixtures thereof; and introducing the obtained mixture (“and depositing them inside a formed strip” [0009]) in a sheath (“formed strip” [0009] or “sheath” [0009]) of cored wire (strip forms a “cored electrode” [0009]) to form the flux-cored wire (“then closing and drawing the strip to the final diameter” [0009] is last step of manufacturing cored electrodes [0009]).
Regarding claim 26, Katiyar teaches a method for the manufacture of a welded joint (“method of forming a weld bead” [Claim 1]) comprising: performing arc welding (“in a gas shielded electric arc welding process” [Abstract]) or laser welding on a steel material (“weld mild and low alloy steel” [0010]) with a flux-cored wire (“cored electrode” [Claim 1]) including a sheath (“includes a metal sheath” [Claim 1]) and a flux (“fill composition” [0010]) that fills the sheath (“metal sheath that surrounds the fill composition in the core of the sheath” [0010]), wherein the flux includes a titanate (“fill composition includes… a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]) and a nanoparticulate oxide selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract]; see Table 1 [0024]), SiO2, ZrO2, Y203, a1203, MoO3, Cr03, CeO2, La203 and mixtures thereof.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katiyar (US 20140124482 A1, cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A03) further in view of Johnson et al. (US 6664508 B1; US version of WO0016940 cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A13), hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding claim 15, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Katiyar teaches the titanate (“a sodium-silica-titanate compound“ [Abstract]) but does not explicitly teach the titanate is chosen from the group consisting of: Na2Ti3O7, NaTiO3, K2TiO3, K2Ti2O5, MgTiO3, SrTiO3, BaTiO3, CaTiO3, FeTiO3 and ZnTiO4 or mixtures thereof.
Johnson relates to sodium-containing titanate compounds used in filler wire and teaches a titanate is chosen from the group consisting of: Na2Ti3O7, NaTiO3, K2TiO3, K2Ti2O5, MgTiO3, SrTiO3, BaTiO3, CaTiO3, FeTiO3 and ZnTiO4 or mixtures thereof (“”titanate" is a salt and/or complex oxide of titanium such as TiO.sub.3.sup.-2, TiO.sub.4.sup.-4, Ti.sub.2 O.sub.5.sup.-2, Ti.sub.2 O.sub.7.sup.-4 , and Ti.sub.3 O.sub.7.sup.-2 Illustrative titanate include alkali metal titanates (M.sub.2 TiO.sub.3, M.sub.2 Ti.sub.2 O.sub.5, M.sub.2 Ti.sub.3 O.sub.7) such as Na.sub.2 Ti.sub.3 O.sub.7, K.sub.2 TiO.sub.3, K.sub.2 Ti.sub.2 O.sub.5 ; alkali earth metal titanates (M.sub.2 TiO.sub.4) such as MgTiO.sub.3, SrTiO.sub.3, BaTiO.sub.3, and CaTiO.sub.3, and transition metal titanates (M.sub.2 TiO.sub.4, MTiO.sub.3) such as FeTiO.sub.3 and ZnTiO.sub.4”, Col. 3, lines 43-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the titanate fill composition of Katiyar to comprise the recited compounds of Johnson in order to “improve [weld] penetration and reduce heat-to-heat variations in penetration” (Col. 4, lines 2-3), as identified by Johnson.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katiyar (US 20140124482 A1, cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A03) further in view of Li et al. (Li et al. (CN 105057911 A), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 18, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Katiyar teaches the nanoparticles (“fill composition includes titanium dioxide“ [Abstract] which is composed of nanoparticles) but does not teach wherein the nanoparticles have a size between 5 and 60 nm.
Li teaches relates to metals for joining containing titanium dioxide and teaches a soldering paste wherein nanoparticles have a size between 5 and 60 nm (“nano-titanium dioxide powder (particle size 5-25nm)” [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the titanium dioxide/nanoparticulate oxide of Katiyar to be between 5-60 nanometers as “nano-sized particles can enhance… wettability and mechanical properties” [0005], as identified by Li. Furthermore, such modification merely involves a change in size of the titanium dioxide/nanoparticulate oxide which the courts have recognized as obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katiyar (US 20140124482 A1, cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A03) further in view of Karogal et al. (US 20060219685 A1; cited on IDS filed 05/02/2023 as A07), hereinafter Karogal.
Regarding claim 24, Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire as recited in claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above) further comprising lime (“one or more slag forming agents… include calcium oxide” [0011]),… manganese oxide (“one or more slag forming agents… include… manganese oxide” [0011]) and calcium fluoride (“one or more slag forming agents… include… calcium fluoride” [0011]) in the form of particles of micrometric or millimetric size.
Katiyar teaches the flux-cored wire but does not teach the flux-cored wire further comprising silica.
Karogal relates to flux cored electrode fill compositions with sodium-silico-titanate and teaches a flux cored electrode fill composition further comprising silica (“example of a fill composition (weight percent)” [0029] is shown in Table 6 as comprising “silica and/or silica compound” along with “sodium silico-titanate”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fill composition of Katiyar to comprise the silica of Karogal to achieve the predictable result of “slag forming” [0032], as identified by Karogal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sasaki et al. (US 20180272477 A1) discloses a flux-cored wire comprising TiO.sub.2 and a fluorine compound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761