DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 remain(s) pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The term “average grain size” in claim 3 is interpreted to refer to recrystallized grains as defined in [0033 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP2017122244, machine translation referred to herein) in view of Kim et al. (KR20170074265, machine translation referred to herein); and further in view of Kumano et al. (US 2017/0184200) and/or Matsubayashi et al. (US 2017/0233845).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi et al. discloses an austenitic stainless steel cold rolled product (ie. sheet) having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, p.3-4]. Adachi et al. further teaches a recrystallized grain size of up to 5 micrometers and a recrystallization portion of 20% or less [abstract, p.4-5]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition and microstructure of Adachi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Adachi et al. does not expressly teach carbonitrides having a size and density as claimed. Kim et al. discloses that it is known to control carbonitride precipitation in austenitic stainless steel to have a size of at least 30 nm and a number density of at least 10 per 100 micrometers squared to control mechanical properties such as strength and creep resistance [0011, 0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Adachi et al. by controlling carbonitride parameters as disclosed by Kim et al. for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the carbonitride parameters of Kim et al. overlap with those as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a thickness range as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the claimed thickness range would have been obvious in view of the prior art. Kumano et al. discloses that it is known to provided austenitic stainless steels for gaskets having a plate thickness of 0.1 to 0.4 mm [abstract, 0015, claim 5]. Matsubayashi et al. also teaches austenitic stainless steels for gasket applications having a sheet plate thickness of 0.05 to 0.5 mm [0001, 0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of the aforementioned prior art by utilizing the plate thicknesses of Kumano et al. or Matsubayashi et al. because these are disclosed to be known plate thicknesses for gasket applications, which is the same application as Adachi et al. above. Alternatively, the examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed features by providing a steel having the composition and structure (disclosed by Adachi et al. and Kim et al.) and specifying a particular thickness range known to be suitable for gasket applications (disclosed by Kumano et al. and/or Matsubayashi et al.) to arrive at the predictable result of a desired steel composition/structure for gaskets. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). In either situation, the examiner notes that the overlap between the thickness range of Kumano et al. or Matsubayashi et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Adachi et al. (wt.%)
C
0 – 0.03
0.01 – 0.1
Si
0 – 1
0 – 2
Mn
0 – 1.5
0 – 3
Cr
15 – 20
10 – 20
Ni
6.5 – 9
5 – 10
N
0.03 – 0.15
0.01 – 0.2
At least one Nb, V, Ti
0.03 – 0.3
0 – 0.5
Mo
0 – 2
0
Cu
0 – 1.5
0
Co
0 – 1
0
Ca, Mg, Zr, Sn, Pb, W
0 – 0.1
0
P
0 – 0.1
0
S
0 – 0.01
0
Al
0 – 0.1
0
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (JP2017122244, machine translation referred to herein) and others as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujisawa et al. (JP5920555, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 2, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach an inclusion as claimed. Fujisawa et al. discloses that it is known to include 0.1 to 2 weight percent Cu and/or 0.1 to 2 weight percent Mo in austenitic stainless steels to increase the stability of austenite [p.2, 4]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of the aforementioned prior art by including Cu and/or Mo in the amounts disclosed by Fujisawa et al. for the aforementioned benefit. The examiner notes that the overlap between the steel composition of the prior art and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended limitations of steel thickness have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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