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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “A full slag covering, spatter-free flux-cored welding wire, comprising a flux core and a metal sheath, wherein the flux core is a slag system based on a neutral slag of calcium oxide-titanium dioxide-aluminum-oxide, molten drops are prevented from flying out to form spatters under action of liquid slag in a welding process.” The claim is interpreted as a product comprising a flux-cored welding wire comprising a flux core and a sheath. The remaining limitations from passage above comprise statements drawn to the intended use of the welding wire and/or its functionality or properties in said intended use that stem from the product/composition itself. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, there does not appear to be any additional structure resulting from the intended use, as the structure is limited to a flux core having the claimed composition and a metal sheath.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 1/19/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A number of cited foreign patent documents were not filed and therefore, not considered as indicated on the annotated information disclosure statements.
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 1-8 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 1 recites “wherein the flux core is a slag system based on a neutral slag of calcium oxide-titanium dioxide-aluminum-oxide, molten drops are prevented from flying out to form spatters under action of liquid slag in a welding process” and also recites “the flux core is composed or rutile, fluoride, titanate, aluminum powder, manganese powder, chromium powder, molybdenum powder and iron powder.” The former limitation uses the phrase “the flux core is a slag system” for which the plain meaning may be interpreted as a statement of its composition/structure; however, based on the broader context of the claim, the limitation may more reasonably be interpreted as drawn to the intended use of the welding wire comprising a flux core. As a result, it is unclear what structure/composition is required by the flux-cored welding wire. Claims 2-8 are indefinite based on their dependency.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “the flux core is composed or rutile, fluoride, titanate, aluminum powder, manganese powder, chromium powder, molybdenum powder and iron powder” but then recites specific compositional ranges including the limitation “a remainder is iron powder or nickel powder.” The latter limitation contradicts the former with respect to iron powder content as the latter limitation allows for the exclusion of iron powder for nickel powder. Therefore, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear if it requires a content of iron powder.
Also, 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 1 recites the broad recitation “titanate,” and the claim also recites “3%-7% calcium titanate” 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 2 recites “wherein the fluoride is composed of a combination of CaF2, LiF, NaF, and BaF2 “ but then recites ranges for each of LiF, NaF, and BaF2 having lower endpoints of zero. Thus, it is unclear if LiF, NaF, and BaF2 are required components and if so, what amount of each is required. For the purposes of examination, as LiF, NaF, and BaF2 each recite compositional ranges including zero, they will be interpreted as optional elements.
Claim 5 recites “the aluminum powder is also configured to undergo an endothermic reaction to delay melting time of the welding wire, increase dry elongation of the welding wire, and reduce distance from an end of the welding wire and to a base metal, making it easy for the slag to contact the molten drops to assist in transition and facilitating coverage behavior of the slag on a welding arc.” It is unclear if the limitation intends to further limit the aluminum powder component of the welding wire or instead, is drawn to describing the benefit/utility of the welding wire comprising aluminum powder. In addition, the term “easy” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 110293330A)(cited on IDS)(machine translation provided) in view of Enomoto (JPH10296486A).
With respect to Claim 1, Guo teaches a flux-cored welding wire comprising a flux core and metal sheath, the flux core comprising, in mass%, as follows (abstract; pgs. 1-2 of translation):
Claim 1
Guo
Rutile
15-35
10-35
Fluoride
15-35
20-40
Calcium titanate
3-7
-
Aluminum
5-10
3-10
Manganese
10-20
10-20
Chromium
3-5
0-5
Molybdenum
3-15
5-15
Iron or nickel
Balance
Balance iron
Thus, Guo teaches a flux-cored welding wire having a core composition with components and compositional ranges closely overlapping each of the instantly claimed ranges with the exception of calcium titanate. Guo teaches that the fluoride may be primarily calcium fluoride (CaF2) and thus, teaches a core composition comprising substantial contents of calcium and titanium in the form of a fluoride and rutile, respectively. (pg. 2 of translation).
Enomoto teaches a flux-cored wire for welding, the core comprising contents of calcium in the form of calcium fluoride and calcium oxide and titanium oxide, wherein the titanium oxide can be added in the form of, for example, rutile or calcium titanate and the wherein the calcium may be added from materials such as wollastonite and calcium titanate. (pgs. 1, 4 of translation). Thus, Enomoto teaches the substitutability of calcium titanate for one or more of titanium compounds (including rutile) and calcium compounds for forming a flux-core of a welding wire.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flux-cored welding wire of Guo, to substitute a portion of the rutile for a portion of calcium titanate, as taught by Enomoto, in order to obtain a flux composition comprising the desired overall combination of elements and compounds. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a substitution to allow for increased flexibility in forming the desired core composition, allowing, for example, for reduced costs and/or improved material logistics. The substitution of one initial material for another used for the same purpose and having the same result would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, with respect to the preamble limitation(s) drawn to “full slag covering, spatter free” and “a slag system based on a neutral slag of calcium oxide-titanium dioxide-aluminum-oxide, molten drops are prevented from flying out to form spatters under action of liquid slag in a welding process,” these limitations are drawn to an intended use of the claimed welding wire and/or properties of the wire when used in said intended use. (see also Claim Interpretation section above). As Guo in view of Enomoto teach a flux-cored welding wire with substantially the same composition and structure, it is deemed capable of the claimed intended use. Furthermore, the welding wire of the combination would necessarily be expected to exhibit the same properties, including the claimed full slag covering and splatter free properties, if used in the recited intended use. See also MPEP 2112.01.
It is further noted that Guo specifically teaches that the flux-cored welding wire minimizes splatter. (pgs. 2-3 of translation).
With respect to Claim 2, the claim is interpreted such that LiF, NaF, and BaF2 are optional, based on the compositional ranges including zero. Guo teaches wherein the fluoride may be comprised of CaF2: 70-100%, LiF: 0-30%, overlapping the claimed ranges. (pg. 2 of translation). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 3, Guo teaches wherein the filling rate of the core is 22-28%, overlapping the claimed range. (pg. 2 of translation). Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claim overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 4, the claim is drawn to chemical reactions that take place in an intended method of use. The claim does not require any additional structure and therefore, is not provided patentable weight. As Guo in view of Enomoto teach a welding wire meeting the limitations of claim 1, from which the claim depends, the combination is deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 5, the claim first recites “wherein the role of the aluminum powder is for slagging and deoxidation.” This limitation does not require any additional structure nor further limit the welding wire in any way but instead, is drawn to a rationale for including aluminum in the flux core composition. The rationale for the inclusion of a compositional component does not distinguish a product from the prior art.
Claim 5 further recites “the aluminum powder is also configured to undergo an endothermic reaction to delay melting time of the welding wire, increase dry elongation of the welding wire, and reduce distance from an end of the welding wire and to a base metal, making it easy for the slag to contact the molten drops to assist in transition and facilitating coverage behavior of the slag on a welding arc.” While the limitation recites the term “configured,” none of the following recitations appear to further limit the welding wire or the aluminum powder therein. Rather, the limitation appears drawn to describing the benefits for the inclusion of the 5-10 mass% aluminum powder required by claim 1. As Guo in view of Enomoto teach a welding wire meeting the limitations of claim 1, from which the claim depends, and includes aluminum powder the combination is deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 6, the claim is drawn to the “role” of the manganese powder in the welding wire. This limitation does not require any additional structure nor further limit the welding wire in any way but instead, is drawn to a rationale for including manganese powder in the flux core composition. The rationale for the inclusion of a compositional component does not distinguish a product from the prior art. As Guo in view of Enomoto teach a welding wire meeting the limitations of claim 1, from which the claim depends, the combination is deemed to meet the instant claim.
With respect to Claim 7, Guo teaches wherein the powder of the flux core comprises a mesh number of 80-120, falling within the claimed range. (pg. 3 of translation).
With respect to Claim 8, Guo teaches wherein the metal sheath may comprise a nickel strip. (pg. 2 of translation).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H10230390 A, drawn to a welding wire comprising rutile, fluoride, and metal powders including Ni, Cr, Mn, and Mo, but wherein the rutile content is outside the instantly claimed range.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights