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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 01/26/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-19 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 4, 12, 18 have been amended; claims 2, 8, 14, 20 cancelled.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 10/29/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 01/26/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; thus, the claim interpretation has changed. Accordingly, the previously cited prior arts Abe and James are no longer applied in any rejections in this Office Action. See detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a layer formed directly on the high alloy metal core” in line 6. This limitation was not described in the specification. Specifically, the specification and the drawings of the Instant Application describe and show that the layer surrounding the high alloy metal core, however, the specification and the drawings do not indicate that the layer formed directly on the high alloy metal core. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3-7, 9-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a layer formed directly on the high alloy metal core” in line 9. This limitation was not described in the specification. Specifically, the specification and the drawings of the Instant Application describe and show that the layer surrounding the high alloy metal core, however, the specification and the drawings do not indicate that the layer formed directly on the high alloy metal core. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 13, 15-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zenp (CN 112908536 A, Published 06/04/2021, Translation is attached) in view of Pei et al. (CN 110977248 A, Published 04/10/2020, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Zenp discloses a welding wire (Zenp Fig.1) comprising:
a high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1) comprising greater than about 10.5 percent by weight of the high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1) of a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Zenp discloses the conductor core 1 comprising greater than 10.5 percent by weight of the conductor core 1 of aluminum because the conductor core 1 is pure aluminum, specifically, Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5 discloses: “A high performance copper-clad aluminium wire, which is composed of a conductor core and a conductor layer uniformly covered on the conductor core, the conductor core is pure aluminium or aluminium alloy material, the conductor layer is made of copper alloy material”, and Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 8 discloses: “As a preference, the aluminium content of the pure aluminium is not less than 99 %.”); and
a layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) formed directly on the high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5 discloses: “A high performance copper-clad aluminium wire, which is composed of a conductor core and a conductor layer uniformly covered on the conductor core”), the layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) comprising a copper alloy (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5 discloses: “A high performance copper-clad aluminium wire, which is composed of a conductor core and a conductor layer uniformly covered on the conductor core, the conductor core is pure aluminium or aluminium alloy material, the conductor layer is made of copper alloy material”), wherein the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”; therefore, Zenp discloses the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%)).
Zenp does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the layer has a thickness greater than about 1 µm
Pei teaches a welding wire (Pei Fig.1) comprising a layer (sheath 1, Pei Fig.1) formed directly on a metal core (core 2, Pei Fig.1):
wherein the layer (sheath 1, Pei Fig.1) has a thickness greater than about 1 µm (it is noted that the sheath 1 comprising copper alloy because Pei Translated Claim 5 teaches: “the material of the sheath is selected from the alloy of nickel, copper, silver, iron, and their respective at least one, preferably nickel.”, and Pei Translated Claim 6 teaches: “wherein the diameter of the wear-resisting welding wire is 0.8mm to 2.0mm;, preferably, the thickness of the sheath is 0.1mm to 0.3mm.”; therefore, the sheath has a thickness greater than about 1 µm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire of Zenp, by making the layer has a thickness greater than about 1 µm, as taught by Pei, in order to ensure the welding wire maintains high electrical conductivity and mechanical stability. While aluminum is lightweight, it is prone to rapid oxidation and has lower tensile strength. A copper alloy sheath would prevent oxidation by protecting the aluminum core from forming high-resistance oxide layers that interfere with arc stability, thus, ensuring the welding wire performs with the efficiency of copper alloy while retaining the lightweight benefits of the aluminum core. Thus, the modified thickness of copper alloy makes the copper alloy acts as a permanent barrier, shielding the aluminum core from environmental degradation.
Regarding claim 3, Zenp in view of Pei teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, Zenp also discloses
wherein the copper alloy comprises a balance of at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Zenp discloses a balance of the copper alloy comprises tin because Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”).
Regarding claim 4, Zenp in view of Pei teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, Zenp also discloses
wherein the copper alloy has the copper content ranging from about 60 weight percent (wt%) to about 95 weight percent (wt%) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”; therefore, Zenp discloses the copper alloy has a copper content to about 95 weight percent (wt%)).
Claim 1, 3-5, 9-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Dong et al. (CN 108161277 B, Published 08/28/2020, Translation is attached) in view of Zenp (CN 112908536 A, Published 06/04/2021, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses a welding wire (welding wire as indicated by Dong Translated Abstract) comprising:
a high alloy metal core comprising greater than about 10.5 percent by weight of the high alloy metal core of a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dong discloses the core comprising greater than 10.5 percent by weight of the core of cobalt, copper, chromium, nickel because the weight percentages are calculated to be 23.49 wt% of Co, 19.94 wt% of Cr, 22.62 wt% of Ni, and 12.24 wt% of Cu from the given atom percentage of each metal of the 1.4 mm diameter wire provided by Table 1 of Dong [see page 5 of Original Document of Dong]; specifically, Dong Translated Abstract discloses: “The invention claims a high-entropy medicine core welding wire for aluminium-steel submerged arc welding, wherein the powder is prepared by the following components according to the atom percentage; the total percentage is 100 %, wherein Fe is 5 ~ 15 %, Al is 10 % ~ 19 %, Co is 18 % ~ 25%, Cr is 20 % ~ 35 %, Ni is 20 % to 35 %, Cu is 5 % to 13 % %. The sheath material is industrial high-purity copper strip.” and Dong Table 1 [on page 5 of Dong] shows atom percentages of the 1.4 mm diameter wire is: Fe is 12.6 %, Al is 16.1 %, Co is 20.9 %, Cr is 20.1 %, Ni is 20.2 %, Cu is 10.1 %; therefore, the weight percentages are calculated to be 13.42 wt% of Fe, 8.29 wt% of Al, 23.49 wt% of Co, 19.94 wt% of Cr, 22.62 wt% of Ni, and 12.24 wt% of Cu.); and
a layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) formed directly on the high alloy metal core (Dong Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 10 discloses: “1, the melting of the base material in the welding process and the dissolving of the base material of the near seam area to the molten pool cannot be avoided; forming the brittle intermetallic compound for preventing the welding seam; the welding seam target component must contain Al and Fe main elements; and the content of the two elements in the welding wire is lower than other main elements; in addition, because of using high pure copper strip to wrap, and the solubility of the copper at the welding seam is good, Therefore, the Cu content of the welding wire should be kept at a lower level.”), the layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) comprising copper (Dong Translated Abstract discloses: “The sheath material is industrial high-purity copper strip.”), and wherein the layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) has a thickness greater than about 1 µm (Dong discloses the thickness of the sheath is 0.5 +/- 0.03mm, which is greater than 1 µm; specifically, Dong Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 8 discloses: “The sheath material uses the industrial high-purity copper strip (99.99 %) with width of 10 +/- 0.1mm and thickness of 0.5 +/- 0.03mm.”).
Dong does not disclose:
the layer comprising a copper alloy, wherein the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%)
Zenp discloses a welding wire (Zenp Fig.1) comprising a high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1), a layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) formed directly on the high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1), wherein:
the layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) comprising a copper alloy (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5 discloses: “A high performance copper-clad aluminium wire, which is composed of a conductor core and a conductor layer uniformly covered on the conductor core, the conductor core is pure aluminium or aluminium alloy material, the conductor layer is made of copper alloy material”), wherein the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”; therefore, Zenp discloses the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%)).
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 Dong material of sheath (high-purity copper, see Dong Translated Abstract) with the Zenp material of sheath (copper alloy, see Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5), 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 using copper as a coating or sheath for welding wire . MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, by using copper alloy, as opposed to essentially pure copper, it has been found that the flaking of the alloy from the outer surface does not cause copper cracking of the weld metal. The copper alloy apparently has higher surface tension and cannot migrate into the grain boundaries in the solidified weld metal by capillary action or otherwise. The use of copper alloy, as opposed to pure copper, has been found to drastically reduce the copper cracking of the weld metal.
Regarding claim 3, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the copper alloy comprises a balance of at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dong in view of Zenp teaches a balance of the copper alloy comprises tin because Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of claim 1 under Dong in view of Zenp).
Regarding claim 4, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the copper alloy has the copper content ranging from about 60 weight percent (wt%) to about 95 weight percent (wt%) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”; therefore, Zenp discloses the copper alloy has a copper content to about 95 weight percent (wt%), as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, and Dong also discloses:
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises chromium at a percent by weight (wt%) of the high alloy metal core ranging from about 12 wt% to about 19.94 wt% (see the explanation in the rejection of claim 1 above, the Dong 1.4mm diameter wire contains 19.94 wt% of chromium) instead of to about 18 wt% as required by the claim.
Regarding the limitation about the high alloy metal core comprises chromium at a percent by weight (wt%) of the high alloy metal core ranging from about 12 wt% to about 18 wt% while the prior art teaches 19.94 wt%, the court has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In this case, the amount of Cr of 19.94 wt% in the total wire core is close enough to the amount of Cr of 18 wt% in the total wire core. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 9, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt%.
Regarding the limitation “the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt%”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 1 above), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Dong teaches certain percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire would affect the protection of the welding wire, the wire feeding and the electrical conductivity. An optimal percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire would achieve the necessary benefits of copper plating such as improved conductivity and corrosion resistance without the detrimental effects associated with thicker, over-plated coatings, thus, optimizing wire feeding and electrical conductivity while minimizing contamination of the weld pool by providing enough copper to protect the welding wire and improve electrical conductivity, while remaining thin enough to ensure smooth, clean, and reliable welding operations, it also ensures low electrical resistance on the wire surface, allowing consistent current transfer from the contact tip to the wire, resulting in a stable arc. Furthermore, the optimal percent by weight of the coating layer comprising copper in the total welding wire prevents the excess copper (flaking/contamination) that causes arc instability and clogging of wire guides. Thus, the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Dong in view of Zenp welding wire, by making the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Regarding claim 10, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire.
Regarding the limitation “the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 1 above), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Dong teaches certain percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total cross-sectional area of the welding wire (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire would affect the protection of the welding wire, the wire feeding and the electrical conductivity. An optimal percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire would achieve the necessary benefits of copper plating such as improved conductivity and corrosion resistance without the detrimental effects associated with thicker, over-plated coatings, thus, optimizing wire feeding and electrical conductivity while minimizing contamination of the weld pool by providing enough copper to protect the welding wire and improve electrical conductivity, while remaining thin enough to ensure smooth, clean, and reliable welding operations, it also ensures low electrical resistance on the wire surface, allowing consistent current transfer from the contact tip to the wire, resulting in a stable arc. Furthermore, the optimal percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer comprising copper in the total welding wire prevents the excess copper (flaking/contamination) that causes arc instability and clogging of wire guides. Thus, the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Dong in view of Zenp welding wire, by making the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Regarding claim 11, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, Dong also discloses
A weld deposit produced by the welding wire of claim 1 (as shown in Dong Fig.1 and Dong Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 1 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 1, using the specification of φ. 4mm of welding wire to weld, according to the component content in the table 1 to obtain φ 1.4mm, the Q235b/7075 for submerged arc welding; the welding current is defined at 119A to 154A”, and Dong Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 14 discloses: “When welding, it should be careful to adjust the melting amount of the base material, adjusting the dry extending length of the welding wire, controlling the melting speed of the welding wire to control the welding seam component in the effective component range forming the high-entropy alloy.”)
Regarding claim 12, Dong discloses a welding method (as shown in Dong Fig.1, and Dong Translated Abstract discloses aluminium-steel submerged arc welding) comprising:
applying an electrical current to convert a welding wire (welding wire as indicated by Dong Translated Abstract) to a molten state to produce a molten weld material (Dong Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 1 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 1, using the specification of φ. 4mm of welding wire to weld, according to the component content in the table 1 to obtain φ 1.4mm, the Q235b/7075 for submerged arc welding; the welding current is defined at 119A to 154A”, Dong Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 14 discloses: “When welding, it should be careful to adjust the melting amount of the base material, adjusting the dry extending length of the welding wire, controlling the melting speed of the welding wire to control the welding seam component in the effective component range forming the high-entropy alloy.”), the welding wire (welding wire as indicated by Dong Translated Abstract) comprising:
a high alloy metal core comprising greater than about 10.5 percent by weight of the high alloy metal core of a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “a component selected from aluminum, bismuth, chromium, molybdenum, chromium/molybdenum alloy, cobalt, copper, manganese, nickel, silicon, titanium, tungsten, vanadium, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dong discloses the core comprising greater than 10.5 percent by weight of the core of cobalt, copper, chromium, nickel because the weight percentages are calculated to be 23.49 wt% of Co, 19.94 wt% of Cr, 22.62 wt% of Ni, and 12.24 wt% of Cu from the given atom percentage of each metal of the 1.4 mm diameter wire provided by Table 1 of Dong [see page 5 of Original Document of Dong]; specifically, Dong Translated Abstract discloses: “The invention claims a high-entropy medicine core welding wire for aluminium-steel submerged arc welding, wherein the powder is prepared by the following components according to the atom percentage; the total percentage is 100 %, wherein Fe is 5 ~ 15 %, Al is 10 % ~ 19 %, Co is 18 % ~ 25%, Cr is 20 % ~ 35 %, Ni is 20 % to 35 %, Cu is 5 % to 13 % %. The sheath material is industrial high-purity copper strip.” and Dong Table 1 [on page 5 of Dong] shows atom percentages of the 1.4 mm diameter wire is: Fe is 12.6 %, Al is 16.1 %, Co is 20.9 %, Cr is 20.1 %, Ni is 20.2 %, Cu is 10.1 %; therefore, the weight percentages are calculated to be 13.42 wt% of Fe, 8.29 wt% of Al, 23.49 wt% of Co, 19.94 wt% of Cr, 22.62 wt% of Ni, and 12.24 wt% of Cu.); and
a layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) formed directly on the high alloy metal core (Dong Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 10 discloses: “1, the melting of the base material in the welding process and the dissolving of the base material of the near seam area to the molten pool cannot be avoided; forming the brittle intermetallic compound for preventing the welding seam; the welding seam target component must contain Al and Fe main elements; and the content of the two elements in the welding wire is lower than other main elements; in addition, because of using high pure copper strip to wrap, and the solubility of the copper at the welding seam is good, Therefore, the Cu content of the welding wire should be kept at a lower level.”), the layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) comprising copper (Dong Translated Abstract discloses: “The sheath material is industrial high-purity copper strip.”), and wherein the layer (“sheath”, Dong Translated Abstract) has a thickness greater than about 1 µm (Dong discloses the thickness of the sheath is 0.5 +/- 0.03mm, which is greater than 1 µm; specifically, Dong Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 8 discloses: “The sheath material uses the industrial high-purity copper strip (99.99 %) with width of 10 +/- 0.1mm and thickness of 0.5 +/- 0.03mm.”); and
depositing the molten weld material onto a workpiece (as shown in Dong Fig.1).
Dong does not disclose:
the layer comprising a copper alloy, wherein the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%)
Zenp discloses a welding wire (Zenp Fig.1) comprising a high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1), a layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) formed directly on the high alloy metal core (conductor core 1, Zenp Fig.1), wherein:
the layer (conductor layer 2, Zenp Fig.1) comprising a copper alloy (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5 discloses: “A high performance copper-clad aluminium wire, which is composed of a conductor core and a conductor layer uniformly covered on the conductor core, the conductor core is pure aluminium or aluminium alloy material, the conductor layer is made of copper alloy material”), wherein the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%) (Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”; therefore, Zenp discloses the copper alloy has a copper content of up to about 95 weight percent (wt%)).
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 Dong material of sheath (high-purity copper, see Dong Translated Abstract) with the Zenp material of sheath (copper alloy, see Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 5), 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 using copper as a coating or sheath for welding wire . MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, by using copper alloy, as opposed to essentially pure copper, it has been found that the flaking of the alloy from the outer surface does not cause copper cracking of the weld metal. The copper alloy apparently has higher surface tension and cannot migrate into the grain boundaries in the solidified weld metal by capillary action or otherwise. The use of copper alloy, as opposed to pure copper, has been found to drastically reduce the copper cracking of the weld metal.
Regarding claim 13, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the method set forth in claim 12, Dong also discloses
wherein the welding method comprises at least one of submerged-arc welding (SAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), gas metal arc welding (GMAW), or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “at least one of submerged-arc welding (SAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW), gas metal arc welding (GMAW), or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dong discloses the submerged-arc welding method as indicated by Dong Translated Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the method set forth in claim 12, and also teaches
wherein a remaining balance of the copper alloy comprises at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof (It is noted that the limitation “at least one metal selected from cadmium, chromium, nickel, tin, zinc, or a combination thereof” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Dong in view of Zenp teaches a remaining balance of the copper alloy comprises tin because Zenp Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 9 discloses: “As a preference, the chemical components of the copper alloy according to mass percentage, comprising 0.1 % to 4% of Ag or 0.1 % to 0.6 % of Sn, and the rest is Cu.”, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 16, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding method set forth in claim 12, but does not teach:
wherein the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire.
Regarding the limitation “the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 12 above), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Dong teaches certain percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 12 above), and having a specific percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire would affect the protection of the welding wire, the wire feeding and the electrical conductivity. An optimal percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire would achieve the necessary benefits of copper plating such as improved conductivity and corrosion resistance without the detrimental effects associated with thicker, over-plated coatings, thus, optimizing wire feeding and electrical conductivity while minimizing contamination of the weld pool by providing enough copper to protect the welding wire and improve electrical conductivity, while remaining thin enough to ensure smooth, clean, and reliable welding operations, it also ensures low electrical resistance on the wire surface, allowing consistent current transfer from the contact tip to the wire, resulting in a stable arc. Furthermore, the optimal percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer comprising copper in the total welding wire prevents the excess copper (flaking/contamination) that causes arc instability and clogging of wire guides. Thus, the percent by cross-sectional area of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Dong in view of Zenp welding method, by making the layer comprises about 0.005% to about 5% of a cross-sectional area of the welding wire as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Regarding claim 17, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the method set forth in claim 12, Dong also discloses:
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises chromium at a percent by weight (wt%) of the high alloy metal core ranging from about 12 wt% to about 19.94 wt% (see the explanation in the rejection of claim 12 above, the Dong 1.4mm diameter wire contains 19.94 wt% of chromium) instead of to about 18 wt% as required by the claim.
Regarding the limitation about the high alloy metal core comprises chromium at a percent by weight (wt%) of the high alloy metal core ranging from about 12 wt% to about 18 wt% while the prior art teaches 19.94 wt%, the court has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In this case, the amount of Cr of 19.94 wt% in the total wire core is close enough to the amount of Cr of 18 wt% in the total wire core. MPEP 2144.05. I.
Regarding claim 18, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding method set forth in claim 12, but does not teach:
wherein the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt%.
Regarding the limitation “the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt%”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 12 above), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.).
In this case, Dong teaches certain percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire (the prior art Dong discloses the diameter and of the welding wire and the thickness of the sheath layer, see details in the rejection of claim 12 above), and having a specific percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire would affect the protection of the welding wire, the wire feeding and the electrical conductivity. An optimal percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire would achieve the necessary benefits of copper plating such as improved conductivity and corrosion resistance without the detrimental effects associated with thicker, over-plated coatings, thus, optimizing wire feeding and electrical conductivity while minimizing contamination of the weld pool by providing enough copper to protect the welding wire and improve electrical conductivity, while remaining thin enough to ensure smooth, clean, and reliable welding operations, it also ensures low electrical resistance on the wire surface, allowing consistent current transfer from the contact tip to the wire, resulting in a stable arc. Furthermore, the optimal percent by weight of the coating layer comprising copper in the total welding wire prevents the excess copper (flaking/contamination) that causes arc instability and clogging of wire guides. Thus, the percent by weight of the coating layer in the total welding wire is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 Dong in view of Zenp welding method, by making the layer is present at a percent by weight (wt%) of the welding wire ranging from about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt% as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Claims 6-7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Dong et al. (CN 108161277 B, Published 08/28/2020, Translation is attached) in view of Zenp (CN 112908536 A, Published 06/04/2021, Translation is attached) and further in view of Procario et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0246921 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises an austenitic stainless steel.
Procario teaches a welding wire (Procario Abstract teaches: “The disclosed technology generally relates welding wires, and more particularly to coated welding wires. A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”)
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises an austenitic stainless steel (Procario Abstract teaches: “A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”, and Procario Par.0049 teaches: “the substantial portion of the metal of the welding wires can include other metals and their alloys, e.g., stainless steels of different grades including ferritic, austenitic, martensitic, duplex stainless steels, and precipitation hardenable stainless steels, among others.”; therefore, Procario teaches the core comprising austenitic stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Dong in view of Zenp, by making the high alloy metal core comprising austenitic stainless steel, as taught by Procario, in order to provide enhanced strength, superior corrosion resistance, high toughness at extreme temperatures and highly resistant to stress corrosion cracking for the welding part; thus, improving overall weld quality.
Regarding claim 7, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding wire set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises a duplex steel.
Procario teaches a welding wire (Procario Abstract teaches: “The disclosed technology generally relates welding wires, and more particularly to coated welding wires. A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”)
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises a duplex steel (Procario Abstract teaches: “A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”, and Procario Par.0049 teaches: “the substantial portion of the metal of the welding wires can include other metals and their alloys, e.g., stainless steels of different grades including ferritic, austenitic, martensitic, duplex stainless steels, and precipitation hardenable stainless steels, among others.”; therefore, Procario teaches the core comprising duplex stainless steels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Dong in view of Zenp, by making the high alloy metal core comprising duplex steel, as taught by Procario, in order to provide enhanced strength, superior corrosion resistance, high toughness at extreme temperatures and highly resistant to stress corrosion cracking for the welding part; thus, improving overall weld quality.
Regarding claim 19, Dong in view of Zenp teaches the welding method set forth in claim 12, but does not teach:
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises an austenitic stainless steel.
Procario teaches a welding wire (Procario Abstract teaches: “The disclosed technology generally relates welding wires, and more particularly to coated welding wires. A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”)
wherein the high alloy metal core comprises an austenitic stainless steel (Procario Abstract teaches: “A consumable welding wire comprises a base wire comprising a steel composition and a coating comprising an iron surrounding the base wire”, and Procario Par.0049 teaches: “the substantial portion of the metal of the welding wires can include other metals and their alloys, e.g., stainless steels of different grades including ferritic, austenitic, martensitic, duplex stainless steels, and precipitation hardenable stainless steels, among others.”; therefore, Procario teaches the core comprising austenitic stainless steel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Dong in view of Zenp, by making the high alloy metal core comprising austenitic stainless steel, as taught by Procario, in order to provide enhanced strength, superior corrosion resistance, high toughness at extreme temperatures and highly resistant to stress corrosion cracking for the welding part; thus, improving overall weld quality.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Ferenczy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,553,640 A) discloses a multi-layer metal tube consists of a flat steel band having a soldering layer connected to at least one side of the steel band.
Barhorst et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0299339 A1) discloses a method for producing a tubular welding electrode comprising the steps of providing a strip of copper-coated steel material having a length and first and second surfaces, wherein at least the first surface of the strip is at least substantially coated with a copper alloy.
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 02/06/2026