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 .
Election/Restriction Response
Applicant’s election of Group I without traverse (claims 1-3 and 7) in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The status of the 05/22/2023 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP 2020-195753 filed on 11/26/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (2) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/13/2024, 05/22/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US 20130270246) in view of Nakamura (US 20130078031), Jin (US 20170312861) and Wasson (US 20180021895)
Regarding Claim 1, Okazaki discloses a weld joint (weld joint 1a) comprising steel plates (steel plates 2a and 2b) and a weld metal (weld metal 3) (para. 0004 and 0046; figs. 1-2), the weld joint (weld joint 1a) formed by welding the steel plates (steel plates 2a and 2b) through the weld metal (weld metal 3),
the steel plates (steel plates 2a and 2b) comprising a steel plate chemical composition containing, in mass%,
C: 0.02 % to 0.20 % (C: 0.05 %, Table 4),
Si: 0.05 % to 0.50 % (Si: 0.29 %, Table 4),
Mn: 0.10 % to 1.80 % (Mn: 0.38 %, Table 4),
P: 0.030 % or less (P: 0.005 %, Table 4),
S: 0.030 % or less (S: 0.004 %, Table 4),
Ni: 6.5 % to 10.0 % (Ni: 9.1 %, Table 4),
N: 0.010 % or less (it is Examiner’s position that N is not required), and
0: 0.010 % or less (O: 0.002 %, Table 4),
with a balance consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities (Table 4) (it is noted Okazaki is silent regarding the steel plates contains inevitable impurities, however provided as evidence Furuya (US 20110036649) discloses that the steel plates contain inevitable impurities (para. 0017), Furuya (US 20110036649) discloses
the weld metal (weld metal) comprising:
a weld metal chemical composition containing, in mass%,
C: 0.10 % to 0.80 % (C: 0.1 % or less, para. 0045),
Si: 0.10 % to 1.00 % (Si: 0.15 % or less, para. 0045),
Mn: 13.0 % to 25.0 % (Mn, para. 0045)
P: 0.030 % or less (it is Examiner’s position that P is not required),
S: 0.030 % or less (it is Examiner’s position that S is not required),
Ni: 1.0 % to 12.0 % (Ni: 8 % - 15 %, para. 0045),
N: 0.080 % or less (it is Examiner’s position that N is not required), and
0: 0.100 % or less (O: 0.015 % or less, para. 0045),
with a balance consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities (remainder consisting of Fe and inevitable impurities) (para. 0045).
Okazaki does not disclose:
the weld metal chemical composition containing:
Mn: 13.0 % to 25.0 %,
Cr: 0.4 % to 3.8 %, and
Mo: 0.1 % to 5.0%.
However, Nakamura discloses a weld metal chemical composition containing:
Cr: 0.4 % to 3.8 % (Cr: 0.1 % - 2.0 %, para. 0061-0062), and
Mo: 0.1 % to 5.0 % (Mo: 0.1 % - 1.5 %, para. 0063-0064).
Therefore, 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 Cr and the Mo of the weld metal of Okazaki to be within the claimed ranges 0.4 % to 3.8 % and 0.1 % to 5.0 % respectively as taught by Nakamura because it is recognized that the composition of Cr and Mo are result-effective variables based on MPEP 2144, Section II-B. Modifying the composition of Cr and Mo to be within the claimed ranges would increase the strength of the weld metal and improve the hardenability for increasing tensile strength TS of the weld metal respectively (para. 0062 and 0064).
The modification does not disclose the weld metal chemical composition containing Mn: 13.0 % to 25.0 %.
However, Jin discloses the weld metal chemical composition containing Mn: 13.0 % to 25.0 % (Mn: 9 % - 30 %, para. 0065, 0011, and 0002).
Therefore, 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 Mn of the weld metal of Okazaki to be within the claimed range 13.0 % to 25.0 % as taught by Jin because it is recognized that the composition of Mn is a result-effective variable based on MPEP 2144, Section II-B. Modifying the composition of Mn to be within the claimed range would strengthen the weld metal and increase work hardening exponent (para. 0065 of Jin).
The modification does not disclose the weld metal comprises tensile properties of a 0.2 % proof stress WPS of 400 MPa or more and a tensile strength WTS of 660 MPa or more.
However, Wasson discloses the weld metal (weld deposit) comprises tensile properties of a 0.2 % proof stress WPS of 400 MPa or more (yield strength greater than about 70 ksi, which is equivalent to about 482.6 MPa) (para. 0100-0101) and a tensile strength WTS of 660 MPa or more (tensile strength of about 120 ksi, which is equivalent to about 827.7 MPa) (para. 0102).
Therefore, 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 weld metal of Okazaki such that it comprises the tensile properties of the 0.2 % proof stress WPS of 400 MPa or more and the tensile strength WTS of 660 MPa or more as taught by Wasson, because it is conventionally known that the indicated proof stress and the indicated tensile strength of the weld metal are found to be within acceptable ranges to weld the steel plates with sufficient joint strength.
Regarding the limitations in lines 29-37, it is examiner’s position that the composition of every element of the steel plates is the result-effective variable that can be modified to arrive at the steel plates having desired tensile strength BTS and desired yield strength BYS and the composition of every element of the weld metal is the result-effective variable that can be modified to arrive at the weld metal having desired tensile properties of a 0.2 % proof stress WPS of 400 MPa or more and the desired tensile strength WTS of 660 MPa or more and satisfy the equations (1) and (2):
[WPS] ≤ [BYS] - 100 MPa ... (1)
[WTS] ≤ [BTS] + 100 MPa ... (2)
Regarding Claim 2, Okazaki discloses the weld joint (weld joint 1a), wherein the weld metal chemical composition (weld metal) further contains, in mass%, one or more selected from the following (i) and (ii): (i) one or more selected from the group consisting of V: 1.0 % or less, Ti: 1.0 % or less, Nb: 1.0 % or less, and W: 1.0 % or less; and (ii) one or more selected from the group consisting of Cu: 2.0 % or less, Al: 1.0 % or less, Ca: 0.010% or less, and REM: 0.020 % or less (it is noted “one or more selected from the following (i) and (ii)”, it is Examiner’s position that one of (i) and (ii) is required. In this case, Okazaki discloses Ti: 0.03 % or less meets the limitation, para. 0045)
Regarding Claim 3, Okazaki discloses the weld joint (weld joint 1a), wherein the steel plate chemical composition (steel plates 2a and 2b, Table 4) further contains, in mass%, one or more selected from the following (iii) and (iv): (iii) one or more selected from the group consisting of Cu: 0.5 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less, Cr: 1.0 % or less, Mo: 1.0 % or less, V: 0.2 % or less, Nb: 0.2 % or less, and Ti: 0.2 % or less; and (iv) one or more selected from the group consisting of B: 0.005 % or less, Ca: 0.005 % or less, and REM: 0.020 % or less (it is noted “one or more selected from the following (iii) and (iv)”, it is Examiner’s position that one of (iii) and (iv) is required. In this case, Okazaki discloses Al: 0.035 % meets the limitation, Table 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Okazaki discloses the weld joint (weld joint 1a), wherein the steel plate chemical composition (steel plates 2a and 2b, Table 4) further contains, in mass%, one or more selected from the following (iii) and (iv): (iii) one or more selected from the group consisting of Cu: 0.5 % or less, Al: 0.1 % or less, Cr: 1.0 % or less, Mo: 1.0 % or less, V: 0.2 % or less, Nb: 0.2 % or less, and Ti: 0.2 % or less; and (iv) one or more selected from the group consisting of B: 0.005 % or less, Ca: 0.005 % or less, and REM: 0.020 % or less (it is noted “one or more selected from the following (iii) and (iv)”, it is Examiner’s position that one of (iii) and (iv) is required. In this case, Okazaki discloses Al: 0.035 % meets the limitation, Table 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights