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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz (US 7,256,369 – provided by Applicant in the IDS) in view of FOR1 (CN113996969A).
Regarding claim 1, Seitz teaches a flux-cored wire with a stainless steel sheath filled with flux (col. 2, lines 54-60), wherein
the flux is alloy powder which includes, by weight %,
carbon (C): 0.5 to 3.0% (see col. 5, lines 9-20 which notes a composition of carbon within the claimed range therefore sufficing the claim),
molybdenum (Mo): 6.0 to 25.0% (see col. 5, lines 9-20 which notes a composition of Mo within the claimed range therefore sufficing the claim),
silicon (Si): 1.0% or less (including 0%) (see col. 5, lines 9-20 which notes a composition of Si within the claimed range therefore sufficing the claim),
manganese (Mn): 1.0% or less (including 0%), by weight % (see col. 5, lines 9-20 which notes a composition of Mn within the claimed range therefore sufficing the claim),
the remainder of iron (Fe) and inevitable impurities (see col. 5, lines 9-20).
Seitz does not teach that the composition of boron (B): 1.0 to 7.0% and chromium (Cr) is 13.0 to 18.0%.
FOR1 teaches a flux-cord wire (see For1, Title) which features a composition by weight of boron 1.0 to 7.0% and chromium of 13-25% (FOR1, Abstract at least). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Seitz with a composition of chromium (Cr) is 13.0 to 18.0%, in order to assess how this composition of chromium impacts the desired optimization of the wire.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of FOR1, further in view of FOR2 (KR20120139821A) and FOR3 (CN11548541A).
Regarding claim 2, Seitz as modified teaches the flux-cored wire of claim 1, wherein the flux is alloy powder which includes, by weight %,
chromium (Cr): 14.0 to 15.0% (met through FOR1, see Abstract at least),
boron (B): 3.5 to 4.5% (met through FOR1, see Abstract at least),
molybdenum (Mo): 8.0 to 9.0% (Seitz, col. 5, lines 9-20),
the remainder of iron (Fe) and inevitable impurities (Seitz, col. 5, lines 9-20).
Seitz as modified does not teach carbon (C): 0.5 to 1.0%, silicon (Si): 0.1% or less (including 0%), manganese (Mn): 0.1% or less (including 0%).
FOR2 teaches an alloy which comprises carbon (C): 0.5 to 1.0% (FOR2, see Description, “With respect to the carbon element, the alloy composition may comprise at least about 0.5% by weight, such as at least about 1% by weight”), silicon (Si): 0.1% or less (including 0%) (FOR2, see Description, “The composition of claim 1, wherein the alloy is substantially silicon free”), manganese (Mn): 0.1% or less (including 0%) FOR2 does not recite MN. FOR3 teaches a flux-cored wire (FOR3, Title) with a Mn composition between 0-1% wt (FOR3, see Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Seitz with a composition of carbon (C): 0.5 to 1.0%, silicon (Si): 0.1% or less (including 0%), manganese (Mn): 0.1% or less (including 0%), as taught by FOR2 and FOR3, in order to assess how this composition impacts the desired optimization of the wire.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of FOR1, further in view of Tseng (US 2019/0176272).
Regarding claim 3, Seitz as modified teaches the flux-cored wire of claim 1, but does not teach the stainless steel sheath is any one selected from austenitic, ferritic, martensitic, or duplex stainless steels.
Tseng teaches a flux wire with duplex stainless steel (Tseng, paragraph [0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Seitz as modified with duplex stainless steel, as taught by Tseng, in order to assess how this impacts the desired optimization of the wire.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of FOR1, further in view of FOR4 (CN116275693A).
Regarding claim 4, Seitz as modified teaches the flux-cored wire of claim 1, wherein the flux-cored wire has a diameter of 1.6 to 3.2 mm (Seitz, col. 7, lines 10-15), but does not teach that wherein the stainless steel sheath has a thickness of 0.3 to 0.8 mm.
FOR4 teaches a flux wire with a thickness of the stainless steel sheath of 0.3-0.6mm (FOR4, claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Seitz as modified with the stainless steel sheath having a thickness of 0.3 to 0.8 mm, as taught by FOR4, in order to assess how this impacts the desired optimization of the wire.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz in view of FOR1, further in view of FOR5 (CN108350528A).
Regarding claim 5, Seitz as modified teaches the flux-cored wire of claim 1, but does not teach the flux-cored wire forms a coating layer formed by forming twin wire arc spraying, with a carbides and borides fraction of 8 area % or more, an oxides fraction of 9 area % or less and a porosity of 2.5% or less.
FOR5 teaches twin wire arc spraying being utilized to process a flux corded wire (FOR5, see Description). FOR5 does not teach a carbides and borides fraction of 8 area % or more, an oxides fraction of 9 area % or less and a porosity of 2.5% or less. However, the claimed fractions and porosity are merely a result-effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Namely, the claim requires a flux corded wire forming a coating layer by twin wire arc spraying, and resulting in specific layers and porosity values. Therefore, it is not patentably distinguishable to claim an application specific carbide, boride, and oxide fractions and a porosity. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Seitz as modified with a carbides and borides fraction of 8 area % or more, an oxides fraction of 9 area % or less and a porosity of 2.5% or less, in order to assess how they impact the desired optimization of the wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights