DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-13 are pending, and claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 12-13 are currently under review.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn.
Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled.
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 12/08/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-13 remain(s) pending in the application.
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, 3-5, 7, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasue et al. (JP2015127447, machine translation referred to herein) and further evidenced by or in view of Yi et al. (CN101984124, machine translation referred to herein) or Chao et al. (CN106801188, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, Sadasue et al. discloses a steel pipe (ie. tube) having a composition as shown in table 1 below as well as ferrite and pearlite [0001, 0034-0035, 0039]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the steel composition of Sadasue et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner further notes that “for a vacuum tube” is an instance of intended use which is not considered to impart any further structure to the steel tube as claimed since the body of the claim does not recite any further structural elements of said vacuum tube. Accordingly, the pipe of Sadasue et al. having the same composition would be entirely capable of being utilized for a vacuum tube absent concrete evidence to the contrary.
Sadasue et al. does not expressly teach a chrome oxide film on the surface of the steel as claimed. However, the examiner submits that the presence of a chrome oxide film would have naturally flowed from the prior art because one of ordinary skill would have recognized that passive chromium oxide films naturally form on steels that contain Cr as evidenced by Yi et al. or Chao et al. [0033 & 0014, respectively]. This position is also further supported by applicant’s own specification which discloses that the presence of Cr in amounts as claimed naturally forms an oxide film [0035 instant spec.]. Since Sadasue et al. discloses overlapping Cr amounts, a substantially similar effect of forming a passive Cr oxide film would have naturally flowed. Alternatively, both Yi et al. and Chao et al. discloses that it is known to include Cr in steels to form a Cr oxide film to improve corrosion resistance [0033 & 0014, respectively]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Sadasue et al. by desirably forming a Cr oxide film on the steel surface to improve corrosion resistance as taught by either Yi et al. or Chao et al.
Sadasue et al. does not expressly teach an outgassing property or charpy impact strength as claimed. However, the examiner submits that overlapping outgassing properties would have naturally flowed from the prior art. Specifically, Sadasue et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition as shown above as well as an overlapping steel microstructure as will be explained below. Therefore, an overlapping outgassing property and charpy impact strength, which directly result from steel composition and microstructure, would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
The examiner’s position is further bolstered by the teaching of Sadasue et al. that the steel has a toughness of greater than 31J at 0 degrees C [0056], which correlates to a slightly lowered value at -20 degrees C and therefore still overlaps with the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner’s position is also bolstered by the overlapping values of yield strength disclosed by Sadasue et al. and overlapping yield ratios and elongation values suggested by Sadasue et al., wherein one of ordinary skill would understand that mechanical properties (ie. strength, elongation, toughness, etc.) are directly dependent on steel composition and microstructure.
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1
Sadasue et al.
C
0.1 – 0.2
0.02 – 0.4
Si
0.05 – 0.5
0.01 – 1
Mn
1 – 1.6
0.5 – 3
Ni
0.5 – 1
0 – 10
Cr
1.5 – 4
0 – 3
Total Ti, Nb, V
0 – 0.01
Ti: 0 – 0.1
Nb: 0 – 0.1
V: 0 – 0.1
Fe & Impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 3-4, Sadasue et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Sadasue et al. further teaches that ferrite is included in an amount of more than 50% and the remainder can be pearlite, which corresponds to an amount of up to 50% pearlite, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [0056]. The examiner notes that martensite and bainite are not required when pearlite is included (ie. zero amount of martensite and bainite), which also meets the claimed ranges. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Sadasue et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Sadasue et al. further teaches a yield strength range of at least 315 MPa, which overlaps with the claimed range [0023]. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Sadasue et al. further teaches exemplary embodiments having tensile strengths ranging from approximately 450 to 650 MPa and elongation values ranging to up to approximately 35% [tables3, 6, 9]. Although these embodiments are not relied upon in the current rejections, the examiner submits that one of ordinary skill would have understood the general scope of Sadasue et al. to encompass the aforementioned tensile strength and elongation ranges, which overlap with the claimed yield ratio (ie. yield/tensile) and elongation values. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Sadasue et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Sadasue et al. further teaches that the steel can have a thickness of 25 mm [0025].
Regarding claim 12, Sadasue et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the further disclosed elements of Sadasue et al. of P and S are commonly known to be impurities in steel and therefore fall under the claimed features of “unavoidable impurities” in the balance. Although Sadasue et al. teaches further elements of Al, Mo, etc., these elements can be included in zero amounts or are expressly taught to be optional and therefore not required, which still meets the closed language of “consisting of…”
Regarding claim 13, Sadasue et al. discloses the steel of claim 7 (see previous). The examiner notes that claim 13 merely combines the limitations of previous claims 3-5. Accordingly, claim 13 is considered to be met by the disclosure of Sadasue et al. for the reasons pertaining to claims 3-5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sadasue et al. does not teach the claimed gas emission rate. The examiner cannot concur. Although Sadasue et al. does not expressly teach this feature, an overlapping gas emission rate would have naturally flowed as explained above. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Since applicant does not provide any concrete evidence or reasoning to the contrary, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended limitations of a Cr oxide film have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections 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