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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
diameter “dl” in paragraph 18 of the detailed description
diameter “d2” in paragraph 20 of the detailed description
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Abstract exceeds a single paragraph.
Abstract refers to “[Selected drawing] FIG. 1”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The application of reference numerals dl and d2 is thoroughly inconsistent throughout the specification.
The use of dl instead of d1 causes unnecessary issues of clarity.
The following elements are lacking a reference numeral in the detailed description at the locations provide:
“similar-composition welding material” in paragraph 17
“removed region” in paragraph 12
“overlay weld portion” in paragraphs 15, 33, and 39
“steel material” in paragraph 12 and 13
“melt pool” in paragraphs 12, 16, 22, 23, and 27
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 term “a composition similar to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a composition similar to” is not defined by the claim. What is considered “similar” can vary case-by-case and therefore no specific definition can be utilized. For example, a bath of water has a similar composition to a bath of hydrochloric acid in that they both contain hydrogen, however hydrochloric acid is a highly caustic compound that will dissolve organic material. Examiner will broadly consider any welding material with any shared chemical composition-related qualities to meet the “similar” requirement.
Regarding claim 5, the term “substantially equal to a distance” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially equal to a distance” is not defined by the claim. What is considered “substantially equal distance” can vary case-by-case and therefore no specific definition can be utilized. For example, a deviation of 0.5 inches may be “substantially equal” while cutting hair, but not while performing brain surgery. Examiner will broadly consider all things in the general proximity of a melt pool as being “substantially” equidistant relative to each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2005054197A), hereinafter Miyamoto.
Regarding Claim 1, Miyamoto teaches a method of overlay welding (Free Coating Method) on a member including a steel material (base material 100; may be stainless steel, Pg. 12 Ln. 37 - Pg. 13 Ln. 3) and an overlay welded portion (surface bead layer 141, Figure 3B; formed after a first layer is deposited, Pg. 16 Ln. 24-28) made of a cobalt-based alloy (dependent on wire used in first layer which may be a cobalt-based alloy, Pg. 12 Ln. 37 - Pg. 13 Ln. 3) and formed on the steel material, the method comprising: generating an arc (electric arc 230) between a welding torch (torch portion 210) and the overlay welded portion; forming a melt pool (molten pool 110) by melting a surface of the overlay welded portion with the arc (Pg. 16 Ln. 30-32); and simultaneously inserting a similar-composition welding material having a composition similar to the steel material (first thin metal wire 330, Figures 1A-E; may be stainless steel, Pg. 12 Ln. 37 - Pg. 13 Ln. 3) and a cobalt-based alloy welding material made of a cobalt-based alloy (second fine metal wire 430, Figures 1A-E; may be a cobalt-based alloy, Pg. 12 Ln. 37 - Pg. 13 Ln. 3) into the melt pool (Pg. 7 Ln. 7-9).
Regarding Claim 2, Miyamoto teaches a method of overlay welding wherein the similar-composition welding material (first thin metal wire 330) has a rod shape or a wire shape (wire; a wire is also a rod), and the cobalt- based alloy welding material (second fine metal wire 430) has a rod shape or a wire shape (wire; a wire is also a rod).
Regarding Claim 4, Miyamoto teaches (Figure 1D) a method of overlay welding wherein the similar-composition welding material is inserted into the melt pool while in contact with the cobalt-based alloy welding material (drawing depicts wires in contact upon insertion).
Regarding Claim 5, Miyamoto teaches (Figures 1C-E) a method of overlay welding wherein the similar-composition welding material and the cobalt-based alloy welding material are inserted into the melt pool such that, along a thickness direction of the steel material, a distance from a surface of the melt pool to a center of the similar- composition welding material is substantially equal to a distance from the surface of the melt pool to a center of the cobalt-based alloy welding material (drawings depict substantially equal distances upon insertion).
Regarding Claim 8, Miyamoto teaches a method of overlay welding wherein the cobalt-based alloy welding material is identical to a material used to form the overlay welded portion (surface bead layer 141 is formed after the first layer is deposited, Pg. 16 Ln. 24-28; if a cobalt-based alloy was selected for the first layer, then the subsequent layer would be materially identical).
Regarding Claim 9, Miyamoto teaches a method of overlay welding wherein the steel material is a 9Cr stainless steel or a 12Cr stainless steel (may be stainless steel or iron-based alloy; Pg. 12 Ln. 37 - Pg. 13 Ln. 3).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto.
Regarding Claim 3, Miyamoto does not expressly teach a ratio between a diameter of the cobalt-based alloy welding material and a diameter of the similar-composition welding material is 70:30 to 60:40, however Miyamoto does teach it is known to optimize wire size, among other variables, as a means of controlling the resulting compounds made in the melt pool (Pg. 9 Ln. 17-20), enabling the production of parts with a gradient composition and thus selectively varied material properties (Pg. 8 Ln. 6-8).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio between the diameter of the cobalt-based alloy welding material and the diameter of the similar-composition welding material be 70:30 to 60:40, because discovering the optimum ratio of the two welding materials would have been a mere design consideration based on the composition of the overlay welded portion and the desired dilution ratio of the new weld. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto in view of Sasano et al. (Japanese Publication No. JPH10277773A), hereinafter Sasano.
Regarding Claim 6, Miyamoto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except a method of overlay welding wherein a region where the melt pool is to be formed is heated at 200°C to 300°C.
Sasano teaches low-carbon stainless steels, such as 12Cr stainless steel, are known to require heat treatment prior to being welded due to their natural susceptibility to delayed cracking (Page 2, Paragraph 2), citing a heat treatment of a weld zone less than or equal to 300°C (Page 3, Paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Sasano to include a step of heat treating the weld zone to a temperature less than or equal to 300°C in order to mitigate delayed cracking of the material.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified method of Miyamoto, as applied in claim 6, in view of Okano et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2006015380A), hereinafter Okano.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified method of Miyamoto teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except a method of overlay welding wherein the region is a region obtained by removing a part of the overlay welded portion to avoid exposure of the steel material.
Okano teaches it is known in overlay weld repair to remove the defective material as a prerequisite step (Page 5, Paragraph 26), as is common many fields of repair, for the sole purpose of avoiding inclusion of inadequate material in the final product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Miyamoto to incorporate the teachings of Okano to include a step of removing defective weld material prior to repair, doing so would avoid incorporating inadequate material under the new weld. This is a universally practiced step in many fields of repair.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Motta et al. (2020). Creating in-situ alloys by welding - new perspectives for advanced materials and applications. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9(3), 6950-6956. The above article discusses the use of tandem wire feed of dissimilar metals in order to achieve in-situ alloys. Further it discusses the state of the art, potential benefits in additive manufacturing, and challenges of implementation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-8725. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights