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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In this case, at least standard NACE TM 0177 [see amended claim 1, para. 75] and NACE SP0472-2010 [para. 73] are listed in the specification, but copies have not been submitted to the office, and thus have not been considered. An attempt was been made to obtain at least a most recent version of “NACE TM 0177” [MPEP 901.06(a)(I.)(A.)], and Examiner has provided NPL: NACE TM 0177:2016 ("ANSI/NACE TM0177-2016", Item No. 21212, Approved 2016.04.18).
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10 have been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-10 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Applicant's amendment to the specification overcomes the 3/2/2026 objection to the specification. Examiner notes that at least the paragraph numbering has also been changed (see paras. 0016-18 of original specification relative to para. 0016 of the amended specification). Although efforts have been made to update old references, Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to point out/correct any references to outdated instant paragraph numbers carrying over from Examiner’s previous office action.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 3/2/2026 objection to the drawings is persuasive, and the objection has been withdrawn [pp. 12-13: “Furthermore, regarding the drawing object under 37 CFR l.83(a), Applicant respectfully submits that no amendment to the drawings is necessary…. No physical structure such as "tensile machine" or "CTOD samples" needs to be graphically depicted because those are not structural features of the claimed method - they are tools used to perform the steps, and their structure is adequately described in the written description. Accordingly, the drawings comply with 37 CFR l.83(a).”].
Applicant’s argument regarding the 3/2/2026 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-10 are persuasive [See Remarks, “3. Drawings, 35 USC U2(a), 112(b) and 112(f)”, pp. 11-13], and the rejections have been withdrawn. However, the amendment to claim 1 has necessitated a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the claims, see below.
Applicant’s argument regarding the 3/2/2026 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is not persuasive [See Remarks. “4. Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101”, pp. 13-15], as evidenced by the prior art Han disclosing a Gleeble 3500 and preparing specimens according to standard NACE 0177 [see paras. 0049 and 0087], wherein NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses a tensile machine [p. 44], and a test bench for performing “Method D—NACE Standard Double Cantilever Beam Test” [pp. 12 and 37], thus amended claim 1 merely adds more known and conventional tools and methods of relevant data gathering (i.e., for experimentation steps).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, as they apply to the prior art presented in the 3/2/2026 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on p. 15 “Regarding the limitation "pre-loading specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation by uniaxiaI tension using a tensile machine", Han's "pre-loading" (seeing such as paragraph [0016] of Han) is hydrogen charging in a solution, which is not mechanical pre-straining. Han does not disclose any pre-straining step.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains in the rejection below that Han at least describes specimens that have strained prior to more testing. Furthermore, the claim does not recite “mechanical pre-straining”.
Applicant argues on pp. 15-16: “Regarding the limitation "comparing the welding parameters with conventional welding parameters of a sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor to determine whether the welding parameters provide an improvement over the conventional welding parameters", Han performs a qualitative pass/fail crack observation (seeing paragraph [0087] of Han), not a quantitative comparison with conventional parameters. And Han does not calculate or compare K1ssc values.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains in the rejection below that Han describes SSCC sensitivity as a relevant variable in the process, SSCC sensitivity corresponding to other relevant process variables (e.g., cooling time), and thus is shown as not only merely disclosing a pass fail observation, but an experimental method wherein recorded specimens are subjected to different deformations, and each one is then inspected for any cracks, but does not describe details to amount or type or prevalence of cracks. A phosita would understand that experimentation on secondary samples is not merely a pass/fail determination, but involves considering details at least regarding the given application. This step, for example, being done by a testing engineer as a mental step, or utilizing tools such as imaging devices and programs/software, configured by a user, to identify particular levels of cracks. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require a “quantitative” comparison.
Applicant argues on p. 16: “1. The problem solved by the present disclosure is different from that solved by Han.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Han is directed at testing methods for pipeline, wherein various tensile stress is pre-applied to secondary specimens, correlated with SSCC.
Applicant argues on p. 16: “Han teaches away from mechanical pre-straining.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although it may be argued Han’s testing method may not utilize “mechanical” pre-straining, Han does describe experimental straining applied to samples prior to testing.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 16: “The claimed method produces unexpected synergistic results.” and p. 17: “The use of NACE TM 0177 and double cantilever beam specimens is not routine.”, and pp. 17-18, with regards to dependent claims 2-10, are not persuasive. It seems the claims are the result of combining known testing methods (preparing secondary samples according to different variables before experimentation) and structures (thermal simulation testers for experimentation, and conventional material testing benches related to cracks, tensile strength, for preparing samples with the different variables) with a known industry standard (e.g., NACE TM 0177:2016, describing test methods), the testing methods adjusted according to the requirements of the given application [i.e., prestrain, e.g., from reeling-lay installation; Remarks, p. 16: “Han is directed to evaluating hydrogen embrittlement susceptibility of the heat-affected zone (HAZ) in pipeline steel welds. Han's goal is to select a cooling time (t815) that minimizes hydrogen-induced cracking. Han does not mention, let alone address, the problem of pre-strain ( e.g., from reeling-lay installation) on the combined fracture toughness and sulfide stress corrosion cracking (SSCC) resistance of the critical reheated coarse grain zone in multi-layer, multi-pass welds. See paragraphs [0002]-[0003] of the specification of Han. Because the problems are distinct Han provides no motivation for persons of ordinary skilled in the art to modify its method to include pre-straining.”]. In response to applicant's argument of unexpected synergistic results, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art, e.g., adapting to different testing methods described in a known industry standard, cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145(II.). In this case, Han establishes the experimentation testing method of claim 1, wherein samples with some predetermined level of strain are prepared before testing in a simulation tester, and the samples are inspected, and according to correlations with SSCC sensitivity, are determined, and optimized pipeline steel welding parameters are determined, and although it may be argued that Han does not disclose using a tensile machine or double cantilever beam specimens, Han discloses using Reel-lay for oil and gas transportation and effects of prestrain, stress and corrosive media [para. 0004], and at least a 2016 version of the NACE TM 0177 describes testing methods involving prestrain [p. 3: “4.3 A number of fundamental material properties correlate with EC susceptibility. Consequently, when specified, all pertinent data on chemical composition, mechanical properties, heat treatment, and mechanical histories (such as percent cold reduction or prestrain) shall be determined and reported with the tensile test data. Each different heat treatment and microstructure of a material of a fixed chemical composition shall be tested as though it were a different material.”]. Thus, amended claim 1 and independent claims 2-10 are at least considered obvious or suggested modifications to be made by a phosita [see new 103 rejection below], e.g., as selecting type and optimizing known testing variables (including known testing methods described by industry standards) according to the given application, e.g., welding pipeline using reel-lay, and issues resulting therefrom; or as conventional mathematical manipulation of known inter-related process variables.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1:
the step of “determining”, “calculating”, “comparing” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art, [e.g., a computer system/a system including a processor with software, memory, sensors, input devices, displays, relevant conventional test benches (e.g., a Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation tester) , welding device, etc.; Remarks p. 12: “In addition, for functional steps whose corresponding structure is not explicitly named, Applicant respectfully acknowledges that these limitations are properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), with corresponding structure being a general purpose processor or computer programmed with the algorithms disclosed in the specification.”],
wherein “filling welding parameter” is used to mean the final welding parameter to be used in an actual welding process [para. 0041], [paras. 0034-37];
wherein “secondary welding thermal simulation experiments” is used to mean experiments (i.e., procedures carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law) performed on the thermally simulated specimens directed at the effects of, e.g., prestrain, stress, and corrosive media [paras. 0002-4];
wherein the step of “processing” in “processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art, used so as to calculate fracture toughness parameters [i.e., samples after thermal simulation are processed into CTOD samples by, e.g., a conventionally known CTOD test bench],
wherein “fracture toughness parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent fracture toughness of each welded heat affected zone of the CTOD samples [paras. 0016-19, 75-81];
the step of “processing” in “processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [i.e., the conventional practice, in an experiment, of measuring dimensions/values of prepared samples before and after being tested by, e.g., a processor, sensors, etc.; paras. 0020-24],
wherein “samples” in “samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation” is used by the claim to refer to the pre-loaded specimens, and that the relevant variables of a specimen that has undergone thermal simulation but has not been pre-strained are processed, and the relevant variables of the specimen after being pre-strained are processed;
wherein “slow strain rate tension test” is used by the claim as including the conventional practice of stretching prepared samples in air at a first rate, and stretching prepared samples in a solution at a second rate [e.g., according to standard NACE TM 0177; paras. 0020-22];
wherein “stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent stress corrosion resistance of each welded heat affected zone of the samples [para. 0023]
wherein “samples” in “samples before and after pre-strain” is used by the claim to refer to the pre-loaded specimens, and that the measured and recorded (i.e., processed) relevant variables of the pre-loaded specimens, before and after slow strain rate tension testing, are being compared;
wherein “pre-strain sensitivity parameter” is used by the claim to mean the index of the pre-strain sensitivity of each welded heat affected zone of the samples [para. 0024];
the step of “analyzing” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art capable of observing and recognizing a relationship between secondary thermal simulation parameters and the calculated parameters [i.e., the conventional practice of reviewing measured and recorded experimental data, including results from experimental testing (i.e., the secondary regulation/control method including the calculation of the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters, and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters) in order to establish a hypothesis,
wherein “secondary thermal simulation parameter” is used by the claim to mean the relevant variables (e.g., target cooling time period, starting/end temperatures, preheating temperature, welding heat input, plate thickness, thermal conductivity, etc.; para. 0027) corresponding to the calculated parameters obtained from the secondary welding thermal simulation experiments, and
wherein “a comprehensive manner” is used by the claim to mean “including all”, specifically that the step includes each element of “determination of secondary thermal simulation parameters by combining the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters”;
the step of “converting” in “converting the secondary thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input parameters by calculation in accordance with a three-dimensional heat transfer formula” is being interpreted as the conventional structure known in the art;
wherein “welding heat input parameter” is used by the claim to mean welding heat input into the thermal simulation tester [i.e., Q; para. 0027], and
wherein “three-dimensional heat transfer formula” is used by the claim to mean a conventionally known heat transfer formula [such as in paras. 0025 and 29], e.g., as found in the standard NACE SP0472-2010 [para. 0090]
[para. 0049: “The Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation tester can accurately simulate the microstructure of the critical reheated coarse grain zone in the heat-affected zone under different heat inputs by varying the cooling rate under the premise of determining the heating rate and peak temperature. The base material is processed into a block specimen with a cross section of 10 x 10 mm2 and a 2 mm thick plate specimen after the Gleeble3500 is used for thermal simulation of welding with different cooling rates. Firstly, fracture toughness tests and stress corrosion tests before and after pre-strain were carried out on thermally simulated specimens to determine the most desirable cooling rate. Then, the cooling rate is converted into welding heat input according to the thermal conductivity equation, and the process parameters are developed for carbon dioxide gas shielded welding, and the welded specimens are subjected to double cantilever beam experiments to verify the safety of the welding process.”];
wherein “welding parameter” is used by the claim to mean welding current, arc voltage, welding speed, welding thermal efficiency factor, etc. [paras. 0028-30];
the step of “using double cantilever beam specimens” in “using double cantilever beam specimens prepared according to a standard of NACE TM 0177” is being interpreted as conventional structure known in the art capable of using prepared specimens in an experiment [i.e., the conventional practice of comparing experimental results (i.e., the determined welding parameters) with a known index of a corresponding relevant quality (i.e., the conventional welding parameters of a given sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor) in order to determine a value corresponding to an optimal result (i.e., to optimize a welding process of a pipeline configured for a sulfide, while ensuring safety), by, e.g., a processor, a Gleeble, a test bench; paras. 0039-41],
wherein “improvement” has been interpreted as indicating that the welding parameters have been optimized such that when actual welding is done with these settings, the welding process efficiency is improved while ensuring safety [paras. 0039-41] see claim rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) below,
wherein “sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor” is used by the claim to mean the index of the inherent stress intensity of each welded heat affected zone of the specimens [paras. 0031-33]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “a standard of NACE TM 0177” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear at least what version/edition of the standard is required by the claim, e.g., it is unclear if the claim requires a standard from a year different from 2016. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the claims as at least including “ANSI/NACE TM0177-2016, Item No. 21212”, supplied by the Examiner as NPL: NACE TM 0177:2016 ("ANSI/NACE TM0177-2016", Item No. 21212, Approved 2016.04.18).
Claims 2-9 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea (mental process of determining welding parameters) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
the claims are directed to statutory subject matter as claim 1 recites a method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel based on a secondary regulation method,
wherein the recited steps of claim 1 are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (i.e., processing samples, calculating parameters, comparing elongations, analyzing (determining/combining) parameters, converting parameters, determining welding parameters/an optimal role) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the steps of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a laboratory testing system. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a system does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of preparing specimens to be welded, using a Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation tester, obtaining CTOD samples and conducting slow strain rate tension tests, a tensile machine, or using double cantilever specimens prepared according to a standard NACE TM 0177, amount to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, experiments are conducted on prepared samples in a secondary regulation method, in order to determine, through a recognized correlation of the results of testing with expected outcomes in an actual welding process, so as to determine optimal welding parameters for the actual welding process, including verification testing on testing samples.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, the limitations of claims further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
In particular, although claims 9 and 10 further describe a step of welding test samples in order to determine the final welding parameters, this is also mere pre-solution activity of data gathering (i.e., verification of experimental results), which does not amount to an inventive concept.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 113579413 A) in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 ("ANSI/NACE TM0177-2016", Item No. 21212, Approved 2016.04.18).
Regarding claim 1,
Han discloses:
A method for determining filling welding parameters of a large deformation pipeline steel based on a secondary regulation method, comprising:
using a Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation tester to perform secondary welding thermal simulation experiments on specimens to be welded, based on a thermal simulation to obtain samples after thermal simulation [para. 0049: “The Gleeble 3500 thermal simulation testing machine can accurately simulate the weld microstructure of different regions with different heat inputs while ensuring low cost and high efficiency. By changing welding parameters such as peak temperature and cooling rate, the coarse-grained microstructure of the heat-affected zone with different heat inputs can be obtained. After processing the base material into φ10mm rod-shaped specimens, 10×10mm2 block-shaped specimens and 2mm thick plate-shaped specimens, welding thermal simulations with different cooling rates were performed using Gleeble3500.”];
processing the samples after thermal simulation into Crack-tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) samples and calculating fracture toughness parameters [para. 0067: “Step 3: The thermally simulated sample is processed into a CTOD sample using the CTOD test method, and the fracture toughness parameters are calculated.”];
pre-loading specimens requiring pre-strain after thermal simulation by uniaxial tension [para. 0016: “The thermally simulated sample was charged with hydrogen in a selected hydrogen-charging solution at a first preset stretching rate for a preset hydrogen-charging time.”], then processing samples before and after pre-strain after thermal simulation [para. 0017: “The hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameter includes the section reduction rate loss, which is calculated using the formula: … Z0 is the section reduction rate without hydrogen charging, and ZH is the section reduction rate after hydrogen charging.”], conducting slow strain rate tension tests, and calculating stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters [paras. 0022-24: “In some embodiments, the slow stretching test specifically includes: The thermally simulated sample is stretched in a selected stretching solution at a preset tensile test temperature and a second preset tensile rate. The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: … where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψs is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ0 is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”];
comparing a change in elongation of the samples before and after pre-strain and calculating pre-strain sensitivity parameters [para. 0062: “Hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity calculation: The dimensions of the samples before and after hydrogen charging were measured, the reduction of area loss lZ was calculated, and the hydrogen embrittlement resistance under different t8/5 conditions was evaluated.”];
analyzing, in a comprehensive manner, determination of secondary thermal simulation parameters by combining the pre-strain sensitivity parameters, the fracture toughness parameters and the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters [para. 0004: “When using Reel-lay for oil and gas transportation, the pipeline will experience performance degradation due to the welding process and will be affected by the combined effects of prestrain, stress, and acidic corrosive media.”; para. 0011: “The target cooling time period was determined by combining hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameters, fracture toughness parameters, and corrosion cracking sensitivity parameters.”];
converting the secondary thermal simulation parameters into welding heat input parameters by calculation in accordance with a three-dimensional heat transfer formula [para. 0081: “Step 5, Welding heat input calculation: Based on the three-dimensional heat transfer formula in standard NACE SP0472-2010, calculate the relationship between the selected t8/5 and the welding heat input”];
determining welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters [para. 0084: “By substituting the obtained welding heat input into the following formula (6) according to the above steps, the relationship between welding current (I), arc voltage (U) and welding speed (V) can be obtained, thus obtaining the welding parameters.”]; and
using [Han teaches a conventional experimental process using a specimens prepared according to standard NACE 0177 (para. 0087), directed at the fact that sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity correlates to the secondary thermal simulation parameters, i.e., SSCC sensitivity corresponds cooling time, pre-strain, (paras. 0090) and that actual welding is done in order to verify the welding parameters as appropriate (para. 0087), and is used to determine the final welding parameters, i.e., if the parameters are not appropriate, this result (i.e., a welding process with ‘conventional’ welding parameters) is compared with a subsequent experiment so as to arrive at a more appropriate set of welding parameters].
However, Han does not explicitly describe using a tensile machine, or wherein the specimens prepared are double cantilever beam specimens.
NACE TM 0177:2016 describes “Laboratory Testing of Metals for Resistance to Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress Corrosion Cracking in H2S Environments” and at least discloses using a tensile machine and preparing double cantilever beam specimens.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the testing method of Han according to updated standards, e.g., by incorporating the teachings of NACE TM 0177:2016, so as to arrive at the limitation of the claims, since Han describes a testing/experimentation method using prepared samples indicative of a real world welding application to optimize welding parameters of the real world welding application, in tandem with/using conventional testing tools like a Gleeble 3500 according to at least a standard “NACE 0177”, wherein a 2016 version of the NACE TM 0177 standard describes at least a tensile test, bent-beam test, c-ring test, double cantilever beam tests, tensile machine, etc. [see pp. iii-iv].
Regarding claim 2, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Han further discloses:
wherein the samples to be welded are multiple [para. 0014: “In some embodiments, there are multiple samples to be welded, and the multiple samples to be welded may be the same or different.”], and multiple samples to be welded have different cooling rates for a secondary heat cycle [i.e., Han discloses a thermal simulation testing machine for preparing multiple samples, wherein the multi-pass welding process is simulated by a Gleeble3500, wherein cooling rate between cycles is changed; para. 0049].
Regarding claim 3, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Han further discloses:
wherein the fracture toughness parameters comprise a CTOD value [i.e., CTOD value is used by the instant claim to mean δ, to evaluate a different t8/5 fracture toughness under different conditions, see paras. 0076-78], and a calculation formula of the fracture toughness parameters is:
PNG
media_image1.png
177
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, F is load, S is span, W is width, B is thickness, a0 is initial crack length, v is Poisson's ratio, σYS is yield strength, E is elastic modulus, VP is plastic component of a notch opening displacement, Z is knife-edge thickness [Han teaches using see paras. 0019-20, 71-72 showing a CTOD value and calculation formula].
Regarding claim 4, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Han further discloses:
wherein the slow strain rate tensile tests [para. 0022] comprises:
stretching the samples after thermal simulation to a specified strain in air at a first preset stretching rate [Han teaches a variable used in calculating SSCC sensitivity that corresponds to a sample after thermal simulation to a strain in air at a stretching rate; para. 0024: “The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψ<sub>s</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ<sub>0</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”]; and
stretching the samples after thermal simulation in a selected stretching solution at a second preset stretching rate at a preset tensile test temperature [Han teaches stretching a sample in a hydrogen charging solution at a stretching rate, at room temperature; para. 0016: “The thermally simulated sample was charged with hydrogen in a selected hydrogen-charging solution at a first preset stretching rate for a preset hydrogen-charging time.”];
wherein the stress corrosion cracking susceptibility parameters comprise a Sulfide Stress Corrosion Cracking (SSCC) sensitivity coefficient, wherein the SSCC sensitivity coefficient is calculated according to following formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
44
192
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψS is elongation in corrosive medium, and ψ0 is elongation in air [see para. 0079].
Regarding claim 5, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han discloses a sensitivity parameter is calculated according to values before and after shrinking [para. 0024: “The corrosion cracking sensitivity parameter includes the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, which is calculated using the formula: where Sψ is the SSCC sensitivity coefficient, ψ<sub>s</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in the corrosive medium, and ψ<sub>0</sub> is the cross-sectional area reduction rate in air.”], and since the variables in a formula may be arranged without any criticality to the information represented, other than design requirements of the given value (e.g., in order to use the same units as related formulas, or to present a percentage in the form of a decimal or a whole number), Han also teaches:
wherein a pre-strain sensitivity calculation equation [p. 3: “the hydrogen embrittlement sensitivity parameter comprises section shrinkage loss; the section shrinkage loss calculation formula is wherein: Z0 is the section shrinkage of the uncharged hydrogen, ZH is the section shrinkage after charging hydrogen.”] is:
PNG
media_image3.png
84
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein ψp0 is an elongation before pre-strain, and ψp1 an elongation after pre-strain [see para. 0064, showing a pre-strain sensitivity calculation equation including elongation before and after stretching].
Regarding claim 6, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han teaches the relationship between secondary thermal simulation parameters and welding heat input [para. 0090], and since the variables in a formula may be arranged without any criticality to the information represented, other than design requirements of the given value (e.g., in order to use the same units as related formulas, or so as to be used to solve for a certain variable), and since Han is directed towards improving the welding process of X65 pipeline steel [X65 inherently having dimensions and properties, e.g., thickness, thermal conductivity, density, specific heat capacity; para. 0052-54], Han also teaches:
wherein a relationship between the secondary thermal simulation parameters and the welding heat input parameters in the secondary regulation method [para. 0012: “The relationship between the target cooling time period and the welding heat input is determined according to the three-dimensional heat transfer formula, and the welding heat input is calculated.”] is:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein Δt is a target cooling time period, i.e. a secondary thermal simulation t8/5, T1 and T2 are starting and ending temperatures of cooling, respectively, T0 is preheating temperature, Q is the welding heat input parameters, d is a plate thickness, l is a thermal conductivity, p is a material density, and c is a specific heat capacity [see para. 0026, showing a relationship between Q and target cooling time period t8/5 and preheating temperature Tp, and a three dimensional heat flow shape factor, wherein, since the material properties and dimensions of the specimens/samples are known, they need not appear in the formulas related to the experimental samples, and would only need to be included if those values were to be changed, e.g., in order to do actual welding on a specimen with different material/dimensions; para. 0052-54].
Regarding claim 7, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
Han further teaches:
wherein the welding parameters are determined according to the welding heat input parameters by using following formula:
Q=IUη/V [para. 0085];
wherein Q is the welding heat input parameters, I is a welding current, U is an arc voltage, V is a welding speed, and η is a welding thermal efficiency factor [para. 0028: “In some embodiments, the relationship of the welding heat input and the welding parameter is Q=IUη/V, wherein Q is the welding heat input, I is welding current; U is arc voltage; V is the welding speed; η is the welding heat efficiency coefficient.”].
Regarding claim 8, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han verifies welding parameters according to conventional and known standard NACE TM 0177 with a four point bend testing process [para. 0087], and since Han has been shown to teach the conventional practice of comparing experimental values with a known index of sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity in order to determine a value corresponding to an optimal result [see claim 1 above, determining an improvement/optimal role], Han also teaches:
wherein the sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor is calculated as:
PNG
media_image5.png
98
470
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein KISSC is the sulfide stress corrosion cracking stress intensity factor; P is load of balanced wedge block, measured values for loading surfaces; a is a cracking length; h is a height of each cantilever, B is a specimen thickness; and Bn is a web thickness.
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a different, known and conventional testing process from the NACE TM 0177 standard, e.g. from updated versions of the standard, such that corresponding values for relevant variables therein (i.e., P, a, h, B, Bn) are used to calculate the index of sulfide stress corrosion cracking sensitivity generated therefrom, and can then be compared to experimental values, so as to determine the optimal role, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., cost and speed concerns.
Regarding claim 9, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 1.
In this case, since Han is also directed at arc welding X65 pipeline steel [i.e., wherein arc welding is conventionally known to include a shield gas and filler wire; para. 0052], Han also teaches:
wherein after determining the welding parameters based on the welding heat input parameters, further comprises:
welding according to the welding parameters using CO2 flux cored gas shielded welding to obtain test samples [para. 0030: “Welding was performed using manual arc welding according to the aforementioned welding parameters to obtain the test sample;”];
conducting CTOD tests, pre-strain tests and stress corrosion tests on the test samples to obtain experimental results [para. 0031: “Deformation test, hydrogen embrittlement test and CTOD test were performed on the test sample respectively to obtain the experimental results;”]; and
determining final welding parameters by combining the experimental results [para. 0032: “The final welding parameters were determined based on the experimental results.”].
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a shielding gas and type of filler wire such that the final welding parameters were determined by test samples that were obtained by arc welding with CO2 shield gas utilizing flux cored filler wire, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g., cost and speed concerns.
Regarding claim 10, Han in view of NACE TM 0177:2016 discloses the method according to claim 9.
In this case, since Han has been shown to teach the conventional practice of verifying experimental results of actual welding, with a deformation test, hydrogen embrittlement test, and CTOD test [para. 0031], Han further discloses:
wherein
the CTOD tests have an experimental rate of 0.5 mm/min, and an experimental temperature of -10 °C [i.e., CTOD tests, wherein Han teaches the experimental rate and temperature; para. 0033: “In some embodiments, the CTOD experiment is conducted at a rate of 0.5 mm/s and a temperature of -10°C.”];
the pre-strain tests have an experimental rate of 0.5 mm/min [i.e., a first stretching rate; para. 0061]; and the stress corrosion tests have an experimental rate of 2 x 10-5 mm/s, and an experimental temperature of 23 °C [i.e., a second stretching rate and experimental temperature, wherein room temperature is considered 23C; para. 0077].
Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select values for the first and second stretching rates and experimental temperature such that the pre-strain test is 0.5 mm/min, the second stretching rate is 2 x 10-5 mm/s, and an experimental temperature is 23 °C, according to the requirements of the given application, e.g. cost and speed concerns, or in response to a different testing standard/protocol.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights