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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the tubular welding wire is configured for welding coated metal workpieces, wherein the tubular welding wire is configured to provide a weld having a porosity less than approximately 0.25 inches per inch of the weld at travel speeds greater than approximately 30 inches per minute. However, the workpiece and weld are not positively recited. The welding wire is only required to be configured for the remainder of the claim. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims.
It is not clear if applicant is attempting to claim a welding wire configuration outside of what is claimed in claim 1. Claim 1 requires “a metallic sheath”, “granular core”, and “cerium”. Given the language in claim 4, these three limitations are considered to meet “the tubular welding wire configured for welding…configured to provide a weld…If this is not the case, the structure of “configured for” and “configured to” is unable to be determined.
The same reasoning also applies to Claims 5 and 6. Regardless, these claims would be considered indefinite due to their dependency on claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Munz et al (US 2006/0096966).
A tubular welding wire (see title and abstract), comprising: a metallic sheath (cored electrode has a metal sheath, see abstract) disposed around and a granular core (present invention has a fill composition of slag. Slag is a granular material, See Paragraph [0009], Paragraph [0013]), wherein the granular core comprises a rare earth silicide component, and wherein the rare earth silicide comprises cerium, lanthanum, or a combination thereof (the fill composition comprises cerium, which is a rare earth silicide, See Abstract and Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, claim 10 recites a cerium content of 0-3%.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as the limitations of claim 1 are met, the welding wire is considered to be configured to provide a weld having a porosity less than approximately 0.25 inches per inch of the weld at travel speeds greater than approximately 30 inches per minute. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. The weld is not positively recited. The wire is only required to be configured a certain way. As limitations from the specification are not to be read into, the claim does not recite any additional structure for the welding wire. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are considered to be met. The same reasoning applies for a porosity of less than 0.10 inches per 1 inch of the weld.
Regarding claim 6, the weld has a Charpy-V-Notch toughness of 45 ft. lbs (greater than 20) at -40oF and 80 ft. lbs at -4oF, which would produce a Charpy-V-Notch toughness greater than approximately 30 ft. lbs. at approximately -30o F. (See Paragraph [0012])
Also, the weld is not positively recited and the toughness of the weld would not be positively recited. As discussed above, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone. The weld is not positively recited, in turn the toughness is not positively recited. The wire is only required to be configured a certain way. As limitations from the specification are not to be read into, the claim does not recite any additional structure for the welding wire. Therefore, welding wire as claimed in claim 1 is considered to be configured to produce a having a Charpy-V-Notch toughness greater than approximately 20 ft. lbs. at approximately -40o F. and greater than approximately 30 ft. lbs. at approximately -30o F.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the core comprises potassium oxide. (See Paragraph [0013])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munz et al (US 2006/0096966) in view of De Long (US 3,501,354) and Bishel (US 3,851,143).
The teachings of Munz have been discussed above. Munz discloses titanium and cerium in the core. (See Abstract) Munz also discloses a stabilization agent. (See Paragraph [0013]) However, Munz fails to specifically disclose the granular core further comprises: an organic stabilizer component comprising one or more organic molecules or organic polymers bound to one or more Group I or Group 11 metals; a carbon component comprising graphite, graphene, carbon black, lamp black, carbon nanotubes, diamond, or a combination thereof; and an agglomerate comprising oxides of one or more Group I or Group II metals, titanium, and manganese.
However, De Long discloses an organic stabilizer component (“some organic material”; C3:33) comprising one or more organic molecules or organic polymers (“sodium carboxymethylcellulose
(sodium CMC)”; (See Column 3, Line 34) [including the teaching} “to thicken binder”; (See Column 3, Line 35) bound to one (“sodium”; (See Column 3, Line 34) or more Group I (“sodium” in the 1st column in the left of the periodic table; See Column 3, Line 34) or Group II metals; an agglomerate (“the flux mixture”; Column 3, Line 33) comprising Group I (“Na 2O” [and] “K2O”; Column 4, Lines 22-23) or Group II metal oxides (“Na 2O” [and] “K2O”; Column 4, Lines 22-23) , titanium oxide, and manganese oxides.
The advantage of using De Long’s “some organic material” of “sodium carboxymethylcellulose (sodium CMC)” is to “thicken the binder”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Munz in view De Long by adding the “some organic material” of “sodium carboxymethylcellulose (sodium CMC)” of De Long to the “powdered mixture of charge” of Munz in order to “thicken the binder”.
Bishel discloses graphite (“varying amount of graphite”; Column 2 at bottom [including the teaching] “as the carbon decreases to within a range of 3 to 5 percent by weight of the core ingredients the strength of the deposit increases while the ductility remains at a high level.”; Column 3, Lines 17-20), graphene, carbon black, lamp black, carbon nanotubes, diamond, or a combination thereof; and
The advantage of using Bishel’s “varying amount of graphite” is “as the carbon decreases to within a range of 3 to 5 percent by weight of the core ingredients the strength of the deposit increases while the ductility remains at a high level.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Munz further in view of De Long with Bishel by adding the “varying amount of graphite” of Bishel to the “powdered mixture of charge” of Muratov “as the carbon decreases to within a range of 3 to 5 percent by weight of the core ingredients the strength of the deposit increases while the ductility remains at a high level.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munz et al (US 2006/0096966) in view of Grabe (US 4,861,392).
The teachings of Munz have been discussed above Munz fails to disclose to potassium in the core is potassium alginate.
Grabe discloses a welding flux mixture, and is relied on solely for why a person having ordinary skill in the art would choose potassium alginate when choosing a potassium source. The flux mixture in Grabe comprises potassium alginate. (See Column 2, examples 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Munz in view of Grabe to provide the potassium source being potassium alginate for reducing spatter during the welding process. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munz et al (US 2006/0096966) in view of De Long (US 3,501,354) and Bishel (US 3,851,143) and in further view of Dallam (US 2005/0121110).
The teachings of Munz in view of DeLong and Bishel have been discussed above. Munz as modified fails to disclose, welding wire comprises between approximately 0.01% and approximately 5% organic stabilizer component by weight.
However, Dallam discloses, a welding wire where the core comprises an organic stabilizer component (a welding flux binder hydrolyzed and polymerized; paragraph 13, lines 1-2, or cellulose materials (e.g., CMC, etc.); paragraph 47, line 12 from the bottom wherein CMC is an acronym of CarboxyMethyl Cellulose), wherein the organic stabilizer component comprises an organic sub-component (a mixture of tetraalkylorthosilicate, Si(OR),4, wherein R is --CHs3, --CaHs or --C3H7, alkali and alkaline earth salts; paragraph 13, lines 2-4 and organometallic precursor; paragraph 13, line 11) configured to release hydrogen (low hydrogen; paragraph 12, line 1) near a surface of a workpiece (not an invention) during welding (paragraph 12, line 5), and wherein the organic stabilizer component further comprises a Group I metal (other element in Group I from “this binder comprises an alkali-alkaline earth silicate, wherein M is lithium, sodium, potassium, or other element in Group I of the Periodic Table”; paragraph 13, lines 5-8), Group II metal (other element in Group II from “M' is magnesium, calcium, barium, or other element in Group II of the Periodic Table and may further comprise metal compounds”; paragraph 13, lines 8-10), or a combination thereof. The organic stabilizer component comprises between approximately 0.05% (0.05; paragraph 20, line 16) and approximately 5% (5; paragraph 20, line 16) of the core by weight (the dried binder; paragraph 20, line 15) or comprises between approximately 0.01% and approximately 4% of the tubular welding wire by weight.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Munz in view of Dallam to provide approximately 0.01% and approximately 5% organic stabilizer component by weight for controlling the stability of the arc, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/8/2025