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 information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2024, 10/23/2025, and 12/1/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (WO 2020/039643).
Regarding claim 7, Takada discloses a metal-cored wire (“solid wire” [Abstract]) having a composition comprising, in mass% (“The solid wire for gas metal arc welding according to the present invention has a composition containing, in mass%” [Abstract]):
C: 0.20 to 0.80% (“0.2-0.8% of C” [Abstract]);
Si: 0.15 to 0.90% (“0.15-0.90% of Si” [Abstract]);
Mn: 17.0 to 28.0% (“17.0-28.0% of Mn” [Abstract]);
P: 0.030% or less (“0.03% or less of P” [Abstract]);
S: 0.030% or less (“0.03% or less of S” [Abstract]);
Ni: 0.01 to 10.00% (“0.01-10.00% of Ni” [Abstract]);
Cr: 0.4 to 4.0% (“0.4-4.0% of Cr” [Abstract]);
Mo: 3.50 to 10.00% (“0.01-3.50% of Mo” [Abstract]);
B: 0.0010% or less (“0.0010% or less of B” [Abstract]);
N: 0.200% or less (“0.12% or less of N” [Abstract]); and
the balance being Fe and incidental impurities (“the remaining portion being Fe and unavoidable impurities” [Abstract]).
Each of the disclosed elements in the wire composition is either the same as, or falls within the claimed range of, the claimed composition of the respective element, except for the composition of Mo. That is, Takada does not expressly disclose Mo: 3.50 to 10.00%. However, Takada discloses “0.01-3.50% of Mo” [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Mo: 3.50 to 10.00%, because the courts have held that, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
In addition to structural limitations, claim 7 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “for submerged arc welding.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 8, Takada discloses the metal-cored wire according to claim 7 as described above, wherein the composition further comprises, in mass%, at least one of selected from groups A and B: Group A: one, or two or more selected from the group consisting of: V: 0.040% or less; Ti: 0.040% or less; and Nb: 0.040% or less; Group B: one, or two or more selected from the group consisting of: Cu: 1.00% or less; Al: 0.100% or less; and REM: 0.020% or less (“The solid wire optionally contains, as necessary, one or more selected from V, Ti, and Nb, and one or more selected from Cu, Al, Ca, and REM” [Abstract]; “V: 0.04% or less, Ti: 0.04% or less, and Nb: One or more selected from 0.04% or less, and / or Cu: 1.0% or less, Al: 0.1% or less, Ca: 0.01% or less, and REM: 0.02% or less One or two or more may be selected and contained” [page 5 of attached translation of Takada]).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (WO 2020/039643) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0084096).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda discloses an arc welding method comprising welding workpieces of a steel material with the metal-cored wire according to claim 7 (“using the obtained solid wire or flux cored wire having the composition shown in Tables 1 and 2 as a welding material, gas metal arc welding was performed in a welding fume collector in accordance with the provisions of JIS Z 3390”; “in accordance with JIS Z 3111, a cryogenic high-Mn steel plate (sheet thickness: 12 mm) is prepared and butted to form a 45 ° V groove, and the obtained solid is obtained. Gas metal arc welding was performed using the wire as a welding material to obtain a weld metal in the groove” [page 7]), the steel material being a high-Mn steel having a composition comprising, in mass%:
C: 0.20 to 0.80% (“0.5% C” [page 7]);
Si: 0.15 to 0.90% (“0.4% Si” [page 7]);
Mn: 15.0 to 30.0% (“25% Mn” [page 7]);
P: 0.030% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that P is not present in the composition);
S: 0.030% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that S is not present in the composition);
Ni: 3.00% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that Ni is not present in the composition);
Cr: 1.0 to 8.0% (“3% Cr” [page 7]); and
the balance being Fe and incidental impurities (“balance Fe by mass%” [page 7]),
wherein the steel material has an absorbed energy at -196°C of 28 J or more and a 0.2% proof stress of 400 MPa or more (“all of the examples of the present invention have excellent resistance to high-temperature cracking without welding cracks (high-temperature cracking) during welding, and have a yield strength (0.2% proof stress) at room temperature of 400 MPa or more, and a test temperature of -196. It can be said that it is a welding material (solid wire) that can obtain a weld metal having both high strength and excellent cryogenic toughness, having an absorbed energy vE .sub.-196 of 28 J or more in a Charpy impact test” [page 8]).
While Takeda discloses an arc welding method as described above, Takeda does not expressly disclose a submerged arc welding method.
Lee is directed to a “high strength welding joint having excellent toughness at low temperature obtained by welding a cryogenic high-strength high-Mn steel” [Abstract]. Lee discloses performing submerged arc welding (“ An aspect of the present disclosure may provide a welding joint formed by submerged, flux-cored, or gas metal arc welding and having a high degree of low-temperature impact toughness and a high degree of room-temperature yield strength due to high-toughness austenite being maintained in the welding joint even under cryogenic environments, and high-temperature cracking is prevented during welding” [0007]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include utilizing submerged arc welding, as this is a known welding process, applied to a known welding method for high-Mn steel, to yield the predictable result of obtaining a welded high-Mn steel with low-temperature impact toughness.
Regarding claim 10, Takeda discloses an arc welding method comprising welding workpieces of a steel material with the metal-cored wire according to claim 8 (“using the obtained solid wire or flux cored wire having the composition shown in Tables 1 and 2 as a welding material, gas metal arc welding was performed in a welding fume collector in accordance with the provisions of JIS Z 3390”; “in accordance with JIS Z 3111, a cryogenic high-Mn steel plate (sheet thickness: 12 mm) is prepared and butted to form a 45 ° V groove, and the obtained solid is obtained. Gas metal arc welding was performed using the wire as a welding material to obtain a weld metal in the groove” [page 7]), the steel material being a high-Mn steel having a composition comprising, in mass%:
C: 0.20 to 0.80% (“0.5% C” [page 7]);
Si: 0.15 to 0.90% (“0.4% Si” [page 7]);
Mn: 15.0 to 30.0% (“25% Mn” [page 7]);
P: 0.030% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that P is not present in the composition);
S: 0.030% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that S is not present in the composition);
Ni: 3.00% or less (the described composition of the steel plate on page 7 indicates that Ni is not present in the composition);
Cr: 1.0 to 8.0% (“3% Cr” [page 7]); and
the balance being Fe and incidental impurities (“balance Fe by mass%” [page 7]),
wherein the steel material has an absorbed energy at -196°C of 28 J or more and a 0.2% proof stress of 400 MPa or more (“all of the examples of the present invention have excellent resistance to high-temperature cracking without welding cracks (high-temperature cracking) during welding, and have a yield strength (0.2% proof stress) at room temperature of 400 MPa or more, and a test temperature of -196. It can be said that it is a welding material (solid wire) that can obtain a weld metal having both high strength and excellent cryogenic toughness, having an absorbed energy vE .sub.-196 of 28 J or more in a Charpy impact test” [page 8]).
While Takeda discloses an arc welding method as described above, Takeda does not expressly disclose a submerged arc welding method.
Lee is directed to a “high strength welding joint having excellent toughness at low temperature obtained by welding a cryogenic high-strength high-Mn steel” [Abstract]. Lee discloses performing submerged arc welding (“ An aspect of the present disclosure may provide a welding joint formed by submerged, flux-cored, or gas metal arc welding and having a high degree of low-temperature impact toughness and a high degree of room-temperature yield strength due to high-toughness austenite being maintained in the welding joint even under cryogenic environments, and high-temperature cracking is prevented during welding” [0007]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include utilizing submerged arc welding, as this is a known welding process, applied to a known welding method for high-Mn steel, to yield the predictable result of obtaining a welded high-Mn steel with low-temperature impact toughness.
Regarding claim 11, Takeda in view of Lee discloses the submerged arc welding method according to claim 9, wherein the composition of the steel material further comprises, in mass%, one, or two or more selected from the group consisting of: V: 2.0% or less; Ti: 1.0% or less; Nb: 1.0% or less; Al: 0.100% or less; N: 0.120% or less; O: 0.0050% or less; B: 0.0020% or less; and REM: 0.020% or less (since each of the above elements in is claimed as having some mass% “or less,” this is interpreted to include zero mass%; the steel material described on page 7 of Takeda is not describe as including anything other than “0.5% C-0.4% Si-25% Mn-3% Cr-balance Fe by mass%.” Therefore, it is understood that the steel material described on page 7 of Takeda includes zero mass% of V, Ti, Nb, Al, N, O, B, and REM, which falls within the respective claimed ranges of each of these elements.
Regarding claim 12, Takeda in view of Lee discloses the submerged arc welding method according to claim 10, wherein the composition of the steel material further comprises, in mass%, one, or two or more selected from the group consisting of: V: 2.0% or less; Ti: 1.0% or less; Nb: 1.0% or less; Al: 0.100% or less; N: 0.120% or less; O: 0.0050% or less; B: 0.0020% or less; and REM: 0.020% or less (since each of the above elements in is claimed as having some mass% “or less,” this is interpreted to include zero mass%; the steel material described on page 7 of Takeda is not describe as including anything other than “0.5% C-0.4% Si-25% Mn-3% Cr-balance Fe by mass%.” Therefore, it is understood that the steel material described on page 7 of Takeda includes zero mass% of V, Ti, Nb, Al, N, O, B, and REM, which falls within the respective claimed ranges of each of these elements.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada et al. (WO 2020/039643) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0084096) and Kapoor et al. (US 2007/0012674).
Regarding claim 13, 14, 15, and 16, Takeda in view of Lee discloses the submerged arc welding method according to claim 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively, as described above..
Takeda in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the fume emission rate during the submerged arc welding is 400 mg/min or less.
However, Takeda discloses wherein “gas metal arc welding was performed in a welding fume collector in accordance with the provisions of JIS Z 3390. The generated fume was collected by a filter (made of glass fiber), and the amount of generated fume (mg / min) was measured” [page 7]; “All of the examples of the present invention are excellent in wire manufacturability, conform to JIS Z 3930 2013, and generate a fume amount of 1200 mg / min or less when performing gas metal arc welding at a welding current of 250 A. It can be said that this is a welding material with a small amount of generation” [page 8]).
Kapoor is directed to a method for evaluating and/or comparing welding consumables [Title]. Kapoor describes submerged arc welding as follows: “Submerged arc welding has many advantages, including high deposition rates, deep weld penetration, high weld quality, and high lineal welding speeds for thin sheet steel workpieces with minimal welding fume or arc light emission” [0003].
Given Takeda’s disclosure of a fume emission rate of 1200 mg/min or less when using the claimed welding wire with gas metal arc welding, and given Kapoor’s teaching that submerged arc welding results in minimal welding fume, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the fume emission rate during the submerged arc welding is 400 mg/min or less. It is understood that submerged arc welding is welding that occurs beneath a blanket of flux. This blanket of flux serves, among other purposes, to reduce the seepage of fumes to the atmosphere above the blanket of flux. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expected that the amount of fumes generated while performing submerged arc welding will be less than the amount of fumes generated while performing gas metal arc welding, under otherwise equal conditions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expected that the fume amount generated during submerged arc welding, using the welding wire of Takeda, will be less than “1200 mg / min or less.” Additionally, regarding the claimed fume emission rate, it is noted that the court has held that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). MPEP § 2111.04-I. The language of claims 13-16 expresses the intended result of the positively recited process steps of claims 9-12, respectively. Takeda in view of Lee discloses the positively-recited process steps of claims 9-12, and therefore meets claims 13-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights