DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are pending and currently under review.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The term “Cr-based stainless steel” is interpreted to refer to either a ferrite or martensitic stainless steel as expressly defined in [0005 instant spec.].
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukimi et al. (JP3709834, machine translation referred to herein) in view of either one of Abe et al. (EP3214198) or Mizutani et al. (US 2017/0029916).
Regarding claim 1, Furukimi et al. discloses a ferritic stainless steel (ie. Cr-based stainless steel) having a composition as seen in table 1 below [0012-0026]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Furukimi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Furukimi et al. is further silent regarding requiring any non-recited elements, which meets the limitation of “consisting of…” as claimed. Furukumi et al. further teaches an average grain size of 50 micrometers or less, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that all of the grains of Furukumi et al. (ie. including the grains defined in (i) as claimed) have a size of 50 micrometers or less, and therefore meets relation (ii) as claimed [0027]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the grain size of Furukumi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furukumi et al. does not expressly teach an inclusion of Mg and/or Hf as claimed. Abe et al. discloses a ferritic stainless steel for exhaust gas applications [abstract, 0001], wherein it is known to include Mg in an amount of 0.0001 to 0.003 weight percent for deoxidation and refinement [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the steel of Furukimi et al. by including the Mg amount of Abe et al. for the aforementioned benefit. Alternatively, Mizutani et al. discloses a ferritic stainless steel for exhaust gas applications [abstract, 0002], wherein it is known to include Hf in an amount of 0.005 to 0.2 weight percent to control steel texture and oxidation resistance [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the steel of Furukimi et al. by including the Hf amount of Mizutani et al. for the aforementioned benefit. In either situation, the examiner notes that the overlap between the disclosed elements of Abe et al. or Mizutani et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the steel texture satisfies relation (i) as claimed. However, the examiner submits that an overlapping, substantially similar value of relation (i) would have naturally flowed from the disclosure of Furukimi et al. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that a resulting steel texture will depend upon a steel’s manufacturing method and composition as recognized by one of ordinary skill. The instant application discloses manufacturing the claimed steel according to the steps further shown in table 1 below. Furukimi et al. also discloses substantially similar, overlapping manufacturing steps as shown in table 1 below. Since Furukimi et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition, method of manufacture, and also similar ferritic grain sizes as stated above, the examiner submits that overlapping, substantially similar values of relation (i) as claimed would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Furukimi et al. (wt.%)
C
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.01
Si
0 – 1
0 – 1
Mn
0 – 1
0 – 1.5
P
0 – 0.04
0 – 0.6
S
0 – 0.003
0 – 0.03
Cr
10 – 18
11 – 23
N
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.04
Al
0 – 0.1
0 – 1
Nb and/or Ti
Nb: 0 – 0.5
Ti: 0 – 0.5
Nb: 0 – 0.8
Ti: 0 – 1
Sn
0 – 0.3
0 – 0.3
B
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.01
Ni
0 – 1
0 – 2
Cu
0 – 1
0 – 1
Mo
0 – 0.2
0.1 – 3
Sb
0 – 0.2
0
V
0 – 0.5
0
W
0 – 0.5
0 – 0.3
Zr
0 – 0.5
0 – 0.5
Co
0 – 0.5
0 – 0.3
Mg and/or Hf
Mg: 0.0001 – 0.005
Hf: 0.001 – 0.1
Mg: 0.0001 – 0.003 (Abe et al.)
Hf: 0.005 – 0.2 (Mizutani et al.)
Ca
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.1
Ga
0 – 0.02
0
La
0 – 0.1
0
Y
0 – 0.1
0
REM
0 – 0.1
0
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Manufacturing
Instant application [0046-0048]
Furukimi et al. [0035-0040]
Hot roll
Hot roll
Anneal at less than 900 degrees C
Anneal 800 to 1100 degrees C
Cold roll at reduction rate of at least 40% with roll diameter of 200 mm or higher
Cold roll at reduction of at least 75% with roll diameter 2300 mm
Finish anneal at greater than 900 degrees C
Finish anneal at greater than 800 degrees C
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the above composition of Furukimi et al. further overlaps with the claimed Sn and B ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a formula (1) as claimed. However, the examiner notes that formula (1) merely further limits the claimed Si, Mn, P, Nb, and Ti amounts, all of which are still overlapping with the ranges of Furukimi et al. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Furukimi et al. further meets the claimed features. For example, Cu can be included in a non-zero amount as taught by Furukimi et al.
Regarding claim 4, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the recitation of “…is used for…” is merely an instance of intended use and functional language, which is not considered to impart any further structure to the claims. See MPEP 2111.02 & MPEP 2173.05(g). Accordingly, the steel of the aforementioned prior art having an overlapping composition, microstructure, and method of manufacture would be entirely capable of being used for hydrogen gas equipment as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734