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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 6-14 and 21-30 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 6-14 and 21-30 are amended. Claim 15-20 are cancelled.
Status of Previous Rejections
All art rejections are withdrawn from previous office action of 11/10/2025.
112 2nd paragraph of claims 6-14 and 21-30 are withdrawn.
Three new grounds of art rejections are rendered in view of amendment of claim 6.
Claim Interpretations
Instant claims 9-10 and 30 are product by process limitation in a product claim. According to MPEP 2113, determination of patentability of product is based on the product itself. That is, the patentability of product does not depend on its method of production unless the process of making the claimed product imparts any structural and/or functional limitation and characteristic on the claimed product. Hence, instant claims 9-10 and 30 are not given patentable distinction over prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-14 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20170096720A1) in view of Tanaka’785 (US20170073785) and Lazzara (US 2009/0252620A1).
As for claims 6-8, 11-14 and 21-29, it is noted instant claims 6-8 are amended to require the lower limit of Al being greater than 0%. Hence, scope of claimed invention are changed.
Tanaka discloses age hardening type microalloyed bainitic steel. The steel requires C, Si, Mn, P, S, Cu, Ni, Cr and at least one of Mo, V, Ti and Nb. Hence, Tanaka suggests the steel consists of C, Si, Mn, P, S, Cu, Ni, Cr , Mo and V with overlapping elemental compositions as illustrated in Tables 1-3 below respectively. (Abstract) Hence, A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding microstructure, Tanaka discloses mixture of bainite and martensite structure with area proportion of martensite 15% or higher is considered undesirable. [0108] Hence, Tanaka suggests mixture of bainite and martensite structure with area proportion of martensite 15% or lower as required by instant claims 16-18.
Hence, instant claim 16 recitation “the steel composition having martensite and bainite” is met.
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose presence of Al to be greater than 0 to 0.04% as amended by instant claims 6-7 and greater than 0 to 0.025% as required by instant claim 8.
Tanaka’785 discloses a similar age hardening type bainitic microalloyed steel and explicitly discloses 0.001-0.1% Al for precipitating AlN to refine crystal grain [0105]-[0106].
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply Al amount of Tanaka’785 to arrive at claimed steel composition, in the steel of Tanaka for the benefit of refined crystal grain.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Tanaka
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.3-0.5
0.1-0.4
0.3-0.4
Mn
0.7-1.5
0.1-3
0.7-1.5
P
<=0.025
0.001-0.15
0.001-0.025
S
<=0.05
0.001-0.2
0.001-0.05
Si
0.6-0.8
0.01-2
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.1-0.8
<=0.4
0.1-0.4
Cr
1.4-2.2
0.1-3
1.4-2.2
Mo
0.1-0.55
0.02-2
0.1-0.55
V
<=0.03
0.02-2
0.02-0.03
Cu
<=0.35
0.001-2
0.001-0.35
Al
Greater 0 to 0.04
Table 2
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Tanaka
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
C
0.3-0.35
0.1-0.4
0.3-0.35
Mn
1.2-1.45
0.1-3
1.2-1.45
P
<=0.025
0.001-0.15
0.001-0.025
S
<=0.025
0.001-0.2
0.001-0.025
Si
0.6-0.8
0.01-2
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.35-0.7
<=0.4
0.35-0.4
Cr
1.7-2.05
0.1-3
1.7-2.05
Mo
0.35-0.55
0.02-2
0.35-0.55
V
<=0.03
0.02-2
0.02-0.03
Cu
<=0.35
0.001-2
0.001-0.35
Al
Greater 0 to 0.04
Table 3
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Tanaka
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.3-0.35
0.1-0.4
0.3-0.35
Mn
1.2-1.35
0.1-3
1.2-1.35
P
<=0.01
0.001-0.15
0.001-0.01
S
<=0.01
0.001-0.2
0.001-0.01
Si
0.6-0.8
0.01-2
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.55-0.65
<=0.4
0.4 is close to 0.55
Cr
1.75-2
0.1-3
1.75-2
Mo
0.4-0.5
0.02-2
0.4-0.5
V
<=0.01
0.02-2
0.02 is close to 0.01
Cu
<=0.2
0.001-2
0.001-0.2
Al
Greater 0 to 0.025
Tanaka does not disclose the tool steel used as critical parts of mud pump such as the fluid module, the discharge manifold, the strainer cross , the adapter spool or the discharge and suction module as required by instant claims 11-14 and 21-29.
Lazzara discloses a smart mud pump comprising a power end having a motor, a crankshaft rotationally engaged with the motor and a connecting rod rotationally engaged with the crankshaft and a fluid end operatively connected to the power end and having a piston, a cylinder operatively engaging the piston, a drilling fluid module, a discharge manifold and a strainer, a discharge and suction module wherein all parts are made of stainless steels (abstract, paragraphs [0028]- [0035] and [0041]). Lazzara expressly discloses mud pump produces imposed forces that cause wear and tear on various pump components. (paragraph [0004]) The mud pump is a component of oil field exploration machinery. (paragraph [0004])
Thus, based on the well-known material requirement for mud pump, applicant’s invention would be merely a “new” use of a known material with expected success in the absence of unexpected result. See MPEP 2112 I SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply bainitic microalloyed steel of Tanaka in view of Tanaka’785 as starting steel composition to make various mud pump components of Lazzara which are subject to wear and tear such as the fluid module, the discharge manifold, the strainer cross , the adapter spool or the discharge and suction module for the benefit of ensuring both high hardness and toughness at the same time as required by Lazzara.
As for claims 9-10 and 30, they are product-by-process claims. Even though instant claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Tanaka discloses a steel as discussed above, which reasonably appears to be only slightly different than the claimed machine part. Hence, a rejection based on section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 6-14 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US20170096720A1). in view of Lazzara (US 2009/0252620A1).
As for claims 6-8, 11-14 and 21-29, Tanaka discloses instant claims limitation as indicated in rejection of Tanaka in view of Tanka’785 above.
Regarding amended Al, It is well established that a prior art reference that discloses a range that overlaps a claimed range, or encompasses a somewhat narrower claimed range, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See /n re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, when the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the obviousness conclusion is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. A prima facie case of obviousness also exists in those cases where the claimed range and the prior art range, though not overlapping, are sufficiently close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same or similar properties. Id.; see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (In response to an argument by an Appellant that there must be an overlap between the claimed range and prior art range to find obviousness, the Court stated “[t]he nonbinding holding in [a previous case], however, does not stand for the proposition advanced by Appellants that a claimed range and prior art range must overlap for an examiner to find a prima facie case.”). In the instant case, Tanaka’s Al at 0% is considered sufficiently close to amended upper limit of Al being greater than 0 absent criticality of claimed Al range. Hence, prima facie case of obviousness is rendered due to closeness.
Tanaka does not disclose the steel used as critical parts of mud pump such as the fluid module, the discharge manifold, the strainer cross , the adapter spool or the discharge and suction module as required by instant claims 11-14 and 21-29.
Lazzara indicated instant claims 6, 11-14 and 21-29 would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection over Tanaka in view of Tanaka’785 and Lazzara above.
As for claims 9-10 and 30, they are product-by-process claims. Even though instant claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. P20 steel discloses a steel as discussed above, which reasonably appears to be only slightly different than the claimed machine part. Hence, a rejection based on section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. See MPEP 2113.
Claims 6-14 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimura (US20090277539) in view of Lazzara (US 2009/0252620A1).
As for claims 6-8, 11-14 and 21-29, it is noted instant claims 6-8 are amended to require the lower limit of Al being greater than 0%. Hence, scope of claimed invention are changed.
Kimura discloses a steel for warm working comprising overlapping composition as illustrated in Tables 7-9 below.
Regarding microstructure, Kimura discloses mixed structure of bainite and martensite.[0048]
Table 7
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kimura
(weight %)
Claims 22-24
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.3-0.5
0.15-0.7
0.3-0.5
Mn
0.7-1.5
0.05-3
0.7-1.5
P
<=0.025
<=0.03
<=0.025
S
<=0.05
<=0.03
<=0.03
Si
0.6-0.8
0.05-2.5
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.1-0.8
0.2-9
0.2-0.8
Cr
1.4-2.2
>=0.8
1.4-2.2
Mo
0.1-0.55
0.5-2
0.5-0.55
V
<=0.03
<=5
<=0.03
Cu
<=0.35
<=2
<=0.35
Al
Greater 0 to 0.04
<=0.01
Greater 0 to 0.01
Table 8
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kimura
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
C
0.3-0.35
0.15-0.7
0.3-0.35
Mn
1.2-1.45
0.05-3
1.2-1.45
P
<=0.025
<=0.03
<=0.025
S
<=0.025
<=0.03
<=0.025
Si
0.6-0.8
0.05-2.5
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.35-0.7
0.2-9
0.35-0.7
Cr
1.7-2.05
>=0.8
1.7-2.05
Mo
0.35-0.55
<=5
0.35-0.55
V
<=0.03
<=5
<=0.03
Cu
<=0.35
<=2
<=0.35
Al
Greater 0 to 0.04
<=0.01
Greater 0 to 0.01
Table 9
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
Kimura
(weight %)
Claim 1
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.3-0.35
0.15-0.7
0.3-0.35
Mn
1.2-1.35
0.05-3
1.2-1.35
P
<=0.01
<=0.03
<=0.01
S
<=0.01
<=0.03
<=0.01
Si
0.6-0.8
0.05-2.5
0.6-0.8
Ni
0.55-0.65
0.2-9
0.55-0.65
Cr
1.75-2
>=0.8
1.75-2
Mo
0.4-0.5
<=5
0.4-0.5
V
<=0.01
<=5
<=0.01
Cu
<=0.2
<=2
<=0.2
Al
Greater 0 to 0.025
<=0.01
Greater 0 to 0.01
Kimura does not disclose the steel used as critical parts of mud pump such as the fluid module, the discharge manifold, the strainer cross , the adapter spool or the discharge and suction module as required by instant claims 11-14 and 21-29.
Lazzara indicated instant claims 6, 11-14 and 21-29 would have been obvious for the same reason set forth in rejection over Tanaka in view of Tanaka’785 and Lazzara above.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 02/10/2026 is considered but are moot because all cited prior art rejections are withdrawn.
In response to argument that none of cited prior art discloses Al greater than 0 and up to 0.02%, argument is moot since all prior art rejections are withdrawn.
In response to argument that present application discloses that there must be some AL within the steel composition, argument completely lacks any evidence support.
Instant application [0032] discloses Al is merely desirable but it is important to minimize the addition of Al due to the detrimental effect on steel quality which suggest Al is not required at all. The most preferably of 0.02% does not mean Al is required. Second, where is the criticality of Al greater than 0% in the original specification? The answer is NONE. Third, newly cited Tanaka’785 discloses A 0.001-0.1% is well known to achieve grain refinement, which is exactly what applicant intends to achieve by including Al.
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 JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights