Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/032,286

APPARATUS FOR PREVENTING WELDING DISTORTION, AND METHOD FOR WELDING PIPE AND FLANGE USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Apr 17, 2023
Examiner
BACHNER, ROBERT G
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Posco Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
737 granted / 838 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 838 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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)(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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (JP2019000852), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 4/17/2023 with English Abstract Regarding claim 1. An apparatus for preventing welding distortion, comprising: Sato discloses: at least one counterweight(12) disposed to be in contact with one side of a flange(Fig. 3, 12 in contact with 8), to be welded to a pipe(4), and having a hollow portion therein(44 and 34 being hollow); and a fastener (23)fixing the counterweight to the flange(23 fixing 12 to 8), wherein the hollow portion(44 and 34) of the counterweight accommodates a refrigerant(See abstract, 34 and 44 housing coolant). Regarding claim 6. Sato discloses: A method for welding a pipe and a flange, comprising operations of: fixing a counterweight of the apparatus for preventing welding distortion according to claim 1, to one side of a flange; and welding the flange to a pipe on the other side of the flange. (See abstract and fig. 3) 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. Claims 3 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2019000852), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 4/17/2023 with English Abstract. Regarding claim 3. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 1. Sato does not disclose: The apparatus for preventing welding distortion of claim 1, wherein the counterweight is formed of the same material as the flange, or a material having higher thermal conductivity than that of the material of the flange. Howver, the device of Sato could be made of the same or different material, having the same, or higher or lower thermal conductivity of the flange. Sato discloses that he purpose of the device is to provide cooling in during the welding operation. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make the device 12 of the same, or different material having a higher thermal conductivity for the purpose of removing heat from the weld. Thus, the features of claim 3 would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP2143(I)(E). Regarding claim 4. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 1. Sato does not disclose: The apparatus for preventing welding distortion of claim 1, wherein a plurality of through-holes for installing the fastener are formed in the counterweight. However, Sato disclose that the device is clamped onto a pipe using 23. However, However, using the though-holes is merely applying a known technique to obtain a predictable result which as been held to be obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). Here there is no evidence that the recited features would provide a different result and as such, the features of claim 4 would have been obvious. Regarding claim 8. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 6. Sato does not disclose: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 6, wherein, when the flange and the pipe are welded, Y-type improvement is applied. However, Sato discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of enhanced cooling and heat sinking of the welded part. As such, it would have been obvious that at least a portion of the improvement would be y-type, and as such, the features of claim 8 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Claims 2, 5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2019000852), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 4/17/2023 with English Abstract in view of Matherne (U.S. Patent No. 5,706,863). Regarding claim 2. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 1. Sato does not disclose: The apparatus for preventing welding distortion of claim 1, wherein a flow path communicating the hollow portion and external portions in the counterweight, in order to inject or discharge the refrigerant. IN related art, Matherne discloses: a flow path communicating the hollow portion and external portions in the counterweight, in order to inject or discharge the refrigerant. (40D and 40C being the flow path of fluid and col. 4, lines 28-41). Matherne discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of enhanced cooling of the weld area. As such, it would have been obvious to provide the fluid exchange system of Matherne to the device of Sato for the benefit of enhancing the cooling of weld areas. Thus the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 5. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 1. Sato does not disclose: The apparatus for preventing welding distortion of claim 1, further comprising: a support interposed between the counterweight and the flange to impart distortion to the flange when fastened by the fastener. In related art, Matherne discloses: The apparatus for preventing welding distortion of claim 1, further comprising: a support interposed(8) between the counterweight(21) and the flange(4) to impart distortion to the flange when fastened by the fastener(44). (See Fig. 5-13). Matherne disclose that the recited features provide the benefit of reduced formation due to heat from the welding operation. It would have been obvious to provide the recited features to the device of Sato for the obvious benefit of providing less deformation. Regarding claim 7. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 6. Sato does not disclose: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 6, further comprising: an operation of imparting distortion to the flange by interposing a support between the counterweight and the flange, in the fixing operation. In related art, Matherne discloses: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 6, further comprising: an operation of imparting distortion to the flange by interposing (8) a support between the counterweight(21) and the flange(4), in the fixing operation(44).. (See Fig. 5-13, and abstract). Matherne disclose that the recited features provide the benefit of reduced formation due to heat from the welding operation. It would have been obvious to provide the recited features to the device of Sato for the obvious benefit of providing less deformation. Regarding claim 9. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 8. Sato does not disclose: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 8, wherein, among the Y-type improvements, high heat input welding is performed on a smooth portion of a central portion, as compared to an inclined portion thereof. In related art, Matherne discloses welding at the bevel, 42, at col. 4, lines 27-41. It would Matherne depicts a smooth portion of the bevel. As such, the welding would be performed on the smooth portion of the of the bevel, in the central area. Matherne discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the features to be joined using welding with minimized deformation. As such, the features of claim 9 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 10. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 9. Sato does not disclose: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 9, wherein a radial length of the smooth portion does not exceed 30 mm. Howveer, the features of Matherne discloses a smooth portion, in fig. 16 may be over or under 30mm. IT would have been obvious to make the area under 30mm, for the obvious benefit of making the welds between a thinner pipe sections. As such, the features of claim 10 would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2143(I)(E) Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2019000852), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 4/17/2023 with English Abstract in view of Schmit (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0053154). Regarding claims 11-13. Sato discloses all of the features of claim 6. Sato does not disclose: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 6, further comprising: an operation of performing a heat-treatment of the pipe to correct welding distortion, generated in the pipe, after the welding operation is completed. Regarding claim 12. The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 11, wherein the operation of performing the heat-treatment is performed for the pipe in an opposite side of the flange in a welded portion, and heating is controlled so that a maximum temperature on a surface of the pipe does not exceed 500° C. Regarding claim 13. The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 11, further comprising operations of: cooling the pipe when the operation of performing the heat-treatment is completed; and separating the apparatus for preventing welding distortion from the flange. In related art, Schmit discloses: The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 6, further comprising: an operation of performing a heat-treatment of the pipe to correct welding distortion, generated in the pipe, after the welding operation is completed.(Abstract, [0004], [0401] [00441] [00465]) Regarding claim 12. The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 11, wherein the operation of performing the heat-treatment is performed for the pipe in an opposite side of the flange in a welded portion, and heating is controlled so that a maximum temperature on a surface of the pipe does not exceed 500° C. (Abstract, [0004], [0401] [00441] [00465]) Regarding claim 13. The method for welding a pipe and a flange of claim 11, further comprising operations of: cooling the pipe when the operation of performing the heat-treatment is completed; and separating the apparatus for preventing welding distortion from the flange. (Abstract, [0004], [0401] [00441] [00465]) Schmit discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of reduced distortion from welding. As such, the recited features of claims 11-13 would have been obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 17, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593643
BATCH THERMAL PROCESS CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588743
HAIRSTYLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582166
AEROSOL PROVISION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588520
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581983
SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE COMPRISING A SEMICONDUCTOR AND COMPRISING A SHAPED METAL BODY THAT IS ELECTRICALLY CONTACTED BY THE SEMICONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 838 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month