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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2025, 09/22/2025, 12/09/205 and 01/08/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 20230105155 A1) [IDs dated 01/14/2025], herein Bae and alternatively in view of Otsuka et al. (US 20220220595 A1), herein Otsuka.
In regards to claims 1 and 4, Bae teaches a welded member having excellent welded portion fatigue strength [Abstract, 0001-0002]. The member comprising an overlap joint of two base metal materials and formed by performing a fillet welding using a welding material thus having a weld zone [0002, 0011]. The weld zone then comprises the welding material and a portion of the base material, the weld material comprises by weight %:, C: 0.06 to 0.1%, Si: 0,04. to 0.2%, Mn: 1.6 to 1.9%, Cr: 0.5 to 1.6%, Mo: 0.1 to 0.6%, a remainder of Fe, and other unavoidable impurities [0026]. The material further comprises by wt %: 0.015% or less P, 0.005% or less of S, 0.10% or less Ni, 0.25% or less of Cu, and 0.10% or less of Al [0037].
Regarding the Ti*, Bae does not expressly teach that the welding material comprises Ti but does teach that the base material comprises by wt % 0.01 to 0.12% of Ti thus the weld zone should comprise a non-zero amount of Ti [0021, claim 2]. The ranges for the elements overlap or encompass the claimed ranges, a table is provided below for comparison.
Weld zone
Claims 1, 4
Bae
wt%
wt%
C
.001-0.3
0.06-0.1
encompassed
Si
0<-1
0.04-0.2
encompassed
Mn
0.5-3
1.6-1.9
encompassed
P
0<-0.03
0-0.015
overlap
S
0<-0.03
0-0.015
overlap
Cr
0<-1.5
0.5-1.6
overlap
Mo
0<-0.6
0.1-0.6
encompassed
Al
0<-0.1
0-0.1
overlap
Ni
0<-0.4
0-0.1
overlap
Ti
0<-0.1
0<*
overlap
Cu
0-0.5
0-0.25
encompassed
Fe + imp
balance
balance
encompassed
The elements overlap relationship 1, for example, for Si =0.04, Cr = 0.5 and Mn= 1.6 then relationship 1 = 0.565 which is between the values claimed
Bae provides for a weld zone as set forth in Fig. 1(a) below, the annotated figure was examined using PowerPoint for measurements and has been resized in the action. Based on the examination of the figure: e1= 0.93, b2= 4.5, thus .93/4.5= 0.21 which meets Relationship 2. Further, θ1 =15 degrees and θ2 = 55 degrees, 55-15= 40 which meets Relationship 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
174
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, regarding the Ti in the weld zone, Otsuka teaches a lap welded joint with a fillet weld [Abstract, Fig.2]. Otsuka teaches the weld metal that forms the welded joint contains, with respect to a total mass of the weld metal, by mass %, C: 0.02% to 0.20%, Si: more than 0% to less than 0.10%, Mn: 0.3% to 2.0%, Al: 0.002% to 0.30%, Ti: 0.005% to 0.30%, P: more than 0% to 0.015%, and S: more than 0% to 0.030% more than 0% to 0.030%, Cu: 0% to 0.50%, Cr: 0% to 1.5%, Nb: 0% to 0.3%, V: 0% to 0.3%, Mo: 0% to 1.0%, Ni: 0% to 2.5%, B: 0% to 0.005%, and a remainder consisting of iron and impurities [Abstract, claim 1, 0012]. Otsuka teaches that the Ti is present as a deoxidizing element and thus has an effect of suppressing the occurrence of a blowhole [0054]. The range of Ti overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added Ti to the weld material of Bae in the range taught by Otsuka. One would have been motivated to do so based on the elements ability to deoxidize and suppress blowholes.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that ranges all include 0 of these additional elements and thus they are deemed optional and not required to meet the limitation.
However, Bae teaches the base material comprises in wt%, 0.01 to 0.05% of Nb, thus a non-zero amount of Nb is expected in the weld zone [0021].
Alternatively, Otsuka teaches the weld metal that forms the welded joint contains, with respect to a total mass of the weld metal, by mass %, C: 0.02% to 0.20%, Si: more than 0% to less than 0.10%, Mn: 0.3% to 2.0%, Al: 0.002% to 0.30%, Ti: 0.005% to 0.30%, P: more than 0% to 0.015%, and S: more than 0% to 0.030% more than 0% to 0.030%, Cu: 0% to 0.50%, Cr: 0% to 1.5%, Nb: 0% to 0.3%, V: 0% to 0.3%, Mo: 0% to 1.0%, Ni: 0% to 2.5%, B: 0% to 0.005%, and a remainder consisting of iron and impurities [Abstract, claim 1, 0012]. Otsuka teaches Nb is added to enhance the hardenability of the weld and improve the tensile strength [0078-0079]. The range of Nb overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added Nb to the weld material of Bae in the range taught by Otsuka. One would have been motivated to do so based on the element’s ability to enhance the hardenability of the weld and improve the tensile strength.
Regarding claim 5, Bae does not expressly teach the fatigue lifespan as claimed. However, Bae teaches a substantially similar welded joint composition and a substantially similar welding process such that one would expect the physical properties of the joint to be substantially similar to that of the claimed joint, see In re Best.
As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art.
Regarding claims 6-7, Bae further teaches the base material comprises in wt. %: 0.02 to 0.08% of C; 0.01 to 0.5% of Si; 0.8 to 1.8% of Mn; 0.01 to 0.1% of Al; 0.001 to 0.02% of P; 0.001 to 0.01% of S; 0.001 to 0.01% of N; 0.01 to 0.12% of Ti; 0.01 to 0.05% of Nb, 0 to 1.5% Cr, 0 to 1.5% Mo and a remainder of Fe and unavoidable impurities [0021]. Here the claimed composition is framed under the transitional phrase comprising that allows for additional elements to be present such a N. Alternatively, N may be considered an impurity in the claimed composition. The elements overlap or are encompassed by the claimed elements.
Base material
Claims 6-7
Bae
wt%
wt%
C
0.04-0.18
0.02-0.08
overlaps
Si
0-2
0.01-0.5
encompassed
Mn
0.5-3
0.8-1.8
encompassed
P
0<-0.05
0.001-0.02
encompassed
S
0<-0.05
0.001-0.01
encompassed
Cr
0-2
0-1.5
encompassed
Mo
0-2
0-1.5
encompassed
Al
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
encompassed
Ti
0-0.2
0.01-0.12
encompassed
Nb
0-0.2
0.01-0.05
encompassed
N
0.001-0.01
Fe + imp
balance
balance
encompassed
Regarding claim 8, Bae further teaches the base material may have a thickness of 1.0 to 2.0 mm [0022]. This range is encompassed by the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Bae further teaches the weld joint is for an automotive component [0002, 0021].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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 COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784