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 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “and possibly other compacted powders…” or “possibly other powder…” It is unclear if applicant is intending to include aluminum, vanadium, aluminum-vanadium, chromium, molybdenum, boron, niobium, tantalum, nickel, zirconium, silicon, copper, tin, iron and palladium in the limitations of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation more than 40%, and the claim also recites more than 42% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 is not grammatically correct. It should read as “wherein the core portion comprises at least 65%, by volume, of powders of titanium.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim is narrative an appears to be stating an inherent property of the product.
Regarding claim 12, Step d) of claim 12 reads "closing the strip to form a tube around a core portion of the powders of titanium and the other powders, said core portion occupying between 30 volume % and 80 volume % of said tube and said core portion" The expression volume % of said tube and said core portion is not clear because it is not clear if it refers to one of the two or the two together.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 13-17 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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) 1-3, 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lui et al (CN 107363433) as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Lui discloses, a titanium alloy welding medication cored wire (one of powder deposited wires within the tube) as detailed below (see paragraphs 2-18 of the specification, Figures 1-2): The flux-cored welding wire comprises a hollow tubular sheath of titanium (equivalent to a hollow tubular section) and a core section filling the sheath, the core section occupying 58% of the volume of the welding wire (see Example, thickness sheath thickness of 0.3 mm, width 8 mm, available outer diameter of 2.55 mm and inner diameter of 1.94 mm, calculated core occupying 58% of the volume of the welding wire, and falls within the scope of this application); The core portion comprises compacted elongated titanium powder and comprises boron, nickel, copper, silicon. Said welding wire comprising a hollow tubular portion of titanium and a core portion filling the tubular portion. The calculated filling ratio is 58% (for a thickness of t=0.3 mm and a width of 8mm, initial Dext 2.55 mm and hence Dint=Dext-2*t= 1.95mm, so the filling ratio is 58%. falls within the claimed between 25 volume % and 85 volume% of said welding wire. The core portion comprises compacted powders of titanium and other compacted powders selected from the group consisting of aluminum, vanadium, aluminum-vanadium, chromium, molybdenum, boron, niobium, tantalum, nickel, zirconium, silicon, copper, tin, iron and palladium. The titanium powders will be elongated since the tube has been drawn just like the examples of the present application (compare in particular with example 3) in paragraph [0051] of the application). Regarding claim 2, the calculation from claim 1 results in 58%. Regarding claim 3, the tube is formed by a coiling process which would include an overlap seam, or butt weld. Regarding claims 8-9, zero carbon or oxygen in the wire is no more than 0.15%. Regarding claim 10, the wire has a width of 5mm.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (CN 107363433).
The teachings of Lui have been discussed above. Lui fails to disclose, regarding claims 4 and 5, wherein said compacted elongated powders of titanium at least partially originate from non- spherical sponge powders of titanium, wherein said compacted elongated powders of titanium at least partially originate from recycled powders of titanium or swarf.
It would have been obvious to adapt Lui to provide the non- spherical sponge powders of titanium or powders of titanium at least partially originate from recycled powders of titanium or swarf since it has been held 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.
Regarding claim 11, as the limitations of claim 1 and 4 are disclosed in the prior art, the limitations of this claim are deemed to be met.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (CN 107363433) in view of Dring (US 2012/0269671).
The teachings of Lui have been discussed above. Lui fails to disclose titanium of more than 65% by volume. Dring discloses a titanium powder welding wire having a titanium percentage of more then 65%. (See Table 2.) Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to include no other powders since it has been held 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) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amata et al (US 2013/0313240).
Regarding claim 12, Amata discloses, (See Fig 4) providing a flat strip (82), providing titanium powder on the strip (84, Paragraph [0026]), closing the strip around the powder (86), reducing the diameter (88). Amata fails to disclose the core portion occupying 30-80% of the tube and said core portions. However, it would have been obvious to provide the core portion occupying 30-80% of the tube and said core portions since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claims 13 and 14, it would have been obvious to perform heat treatment and use an inert atmosphere as these are virtually inherent steps in the process. Regarding claim 15, Figure show creating an overlap. Regarding claims 16 and 17 It would have been obvious to adapt Lui to provide the non- spherical sponge powders of titanium or powders of titanium at least partially originate from recycled powders of titanium or swarf since it has been held 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.
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 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights