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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 01, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 01, 2026.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are pending, claim 1 is independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specifically, “Provided is” is language that can be implied.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the following formulas" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 7, these claims are each rejected for their respective incorporation of the above due to their individual dependencies on claim 1.
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.
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(s) 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 2567776 A1), hereinafter Nakamura (of record) as evidenced by Kostin et al. (“Microstructure of Haz Metal of Joints of High-Strength Structural Steel Weldox 1300”), hereinafter Kostin (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Nakamura teaches two steel plates of 4-12 mm thickness (sheets) joined at a welded joint (Fig. 1; Abstract), where the steel plate has a tensile strength of 1100 MPa or more and may be WELDOX series ([0059]). Nakamura further teaches a weld metal has a single-phase structure of martensite with O in mass % of 0.005-0.05% ([0010]).
A single phase structure of martensite has ~100 area % in the weld metal, and the oxygen amount is also written as 50-500 ppm, which meets formula 1. When oxygen is 50 ppm and martensite is 100%, formula 2 reads 8.8≤100≤100 and when oxygen is 500 ppm, formula 3 reads 0≤100≤130. Thus, the prior art of Nakamura reads on formulas (1)-(3).
Kostin provides evidence that Weldox (specifically 1300) has a composition including 0.2 Ti wt.% and no B (non listed, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands it is absent) (Table 1) and contains about 60% bainite and 40% of martensite (Conclusions 1; one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands % to refer to area or volume percentages, which are equivalent absent a teaching to the contrary).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions including values that meet claimed formulas (1)-(3) and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements including the formulas (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Kamei (US 2009/0095720 A1), (as evidenced by Kostin).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura as evidenced by Kostin teaches each limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Nakamura does not specifically teach the welded joint is a lap fillet welded joint.
Kamei is in a similar field of endeavor of hybrid welding (laser and arc) to weld steel plates (claim 1) and teaches lap fillet welding of steel plates ([0046]; i.e. a lap fillet weld). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nakamura to incorporate the type of weld of Kamei. The motivation for doing so would have been simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 I B). The prior art of Nakamura taught a product differing from that claimed only by the type of weld joint (substitution of the type of weld joint) (finding 1). The claimed welded joint was known in the art (citations to Nakamura above in claim 1), as was the substituted component (Kamei citation above) (finding 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked from Nakamura to a related patent publication in Kamei and substituted the type of welded joint; further types of welded joint are well understood in the art and the results of the substitution are known to be predictable (finding 3).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Kamei (as evidenced by Kostin) teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Nakamura further teaches two steel plates of 4-12 mm thickness (sheets) joined at a welded joint (Fig. 1; Abstract), where the steel plate has may be WELDOX series ([0059]). Kostin provides evidence that Weldox (specifically 1300) has a composition including 0.2 Ti wt.% and no B (non listed, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably understands it is absent) (Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, (MPEP 2144.05 I). The proportions disclosed by the prior art overlap applicants claimed proportions and therefore establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to select from the proportions disclosed by the prior art, including those proportions, which satisfy the presently claimed requirements (MPEP 2144.05 I). As of the writing of this Office Action, no objective evidence of criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights