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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of EP 20193794.3 filed September 1, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2022/049051, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2021/073959 filed August 31, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed December 29, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 29, 2025
Amended
1-5, 9, 11, 14-17
Cancelled
6, 8, 13
Pending
1-5, 7, 9-12, 14-17
The applicant argues claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations of now cancelled claims 6, 8, and 13 (Remarks p. 26 para. 2).
Withdrawn Specification Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to specification amendment:
Decimal numbers using a comma “,” instead of a period “.”.
The following objection is withdrawn to drawing amendment:
Fig. 1 amendment to address 16:2-9 and Table 3 a, b, c, d, e, f, and g versus a’, b’, c’, d’, e’, f’ and g’.
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 2 line 2 “pitting resistance equivalent (PRE)”, claim 4 line 2 “SFE”, and claim 5 line 2 “critical pitting temperature CPT” being inconsistent.
Claim 9 line 2 not ending with a period, “.”.
Claim 14 lines 3-4 “0,005”, “0,040”, and “0,04” use a comma “,” where there should be a period “.”.
Claim 15 table column 3 heading “Cu+Mo+0,5W %” uses a comma “,” where there should be a period “.”.
Claim 15 table values use a comma “,” in the numbers where there should be a period “.”.
Claim 16 table column 3 heading “Cu+Mo+0,5W %” uses a comma “,” where there should be a period “.”.
Claim 16 table values use a comma “,” in the numbers where there should be a period “.”.
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claim 13 line 4 “0,0001” uses a comma “,” where there should be a period “.”, 0.0001.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 line 1 “utilizing the TRIP effect”.
According to applicant’s specification at 1:7-10 the TRIP effect “refers to the transformation of metastable retained austenite to martensite during plastic deformation as a result of imposed stress or strain”. Amended claim 1 line 1 recites in the preamble “capable of utilizing the TRIP effect”, such that it recites the purpose or intended use of the claimed austenite stainless steel that the prior art structure is capable of performing. MPEP 2111.02(II). Therefore, claim 1 requires the recited microstructure of lines 9-10 “the proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure is < 10.0 volume %, the rest being austenite”.
Claim 1 line 1 “steel” and line 3 “0-0.04 weight % C”.
Claim 1 lines 6-8 “the proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure is 0-10.0 volume %, the rest being austenite, when quenched and heat treated at the temperature range of 900 – 1200 °C, preferably 950 – 1150 °C”.
Claim 1 lines 7-8 “when quenched and heat treated at the temperature range of 900 – 1200 °C, preferably 950 – 1150 °C”.
Amended claim 1 lines 11-12 recite the austenitic stainless steel is “obtained by quenching and heat treating the austenitic stainless steel at the temperature range of 900 – 1200 °C”. This is a product-by-process limitation where determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I).
Claim 1 lines 7-8 broadly “900 – 1200°C” and narrowly “950-1150°C”.
Claim 3 lines 2-3 broadly “-70 to +60 °C” and narrowly “-30 to +60°C”.
Claim 9 line 2 “less than 0-1.5 weight %”.
Claim 11 line 3 “(Mo + 0.5W) is in the range 0-4.0 weight %”.
Claim 11 lines 3-4 broadly “0-4.0 weight %” and narrowly “2.2 – 4.0 weight %”.
Claim 14 line 3 broadly “0.0001-0,010 weight %” and narrowly “0.0001-0,005 weight %”.
Claim 17 lines 2-4 “the steel is produced as ingots, slabs, blooms, billets, plates, sheets, strips, coils, bars, rods, wires, profiles and shapes, seamless and welded tubes and/or pipes, metallic powder, formed shapes and profiles”.
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim cancellation:
Claim 13 lines 3-4 broadly “0.0001 – 0.04 weight %” and narrowly “0.0001 – 0.03 weight %”.
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to drawings amendment:
Claim 15 lines 2-3 “the frame of the area a’, b’, c’, d’, e’, f’ and g’ in Fig. 1”.
Response to Remarks filed December 29, 2025
112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 15 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues applicant’s specification at 16:4-17 describe Fig. 1 with the preferred ranges of 0.21-0.33 for C+N and 4.0-7.7 for Mn+Ni, such that claim 15 is definite (Remarks p. 25 para. 6).
Claim 15 lines 2-4 recite “the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area a’, b’, c’ d’, e’, f’ and g’ in Fig. 1 and is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight %” with the table reciting a’, b’, c’, d’, e’, f’, and g for “Si+Cr %”, “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”, “C+N %”, and “Mn+Ni %”. Applicant’s Fig. 1 recites “Cu+Mo+0.5W” on the x-axis and “Si+Cr” on the y-axis. The frame of the area in Fig. 1 is defined by “Si+Cr %” and “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”. While “C+N %” and “Mn + Ni %” are recited in the table, it is unclear how they define the composition window of Fig. 1.
The applicant argues applicant’s specification at 17:8 to 18:2 describe Fig. 3, including Si+Cr and Cu+Mo+0.5W, such that claim 15 is definite (Remarks p. 25 para. 6).
Claim 16 lines 2-4 recite “the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area p’, q’, r’ and s’ in Fig. 3 and is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight %” with the table reciting p’, q’, r’, and s’ for “Si+Cr %”, “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”, “C+N %”, and “Mn+Ni %”. Applicant’s Fig. 3 recites “Mn+Ni” on the x-axis and “C+N” on the y-axis. While “Si+Cr %” and “Cu+Mo+0.5W %” are recited in the table, it is unclear how they define the composition window of Fig. 3.
Sawada optionally in view of Torizuka
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2026 with respect to Sawada optionally in view of Torizuka have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Sawada [0020] discloses limiting Cr to prevent delta ferrite formation at high temperatures to prevent deterioration in hot workability, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Sawada to realize the criticality of the claimed ferrite/austenite proportion for improved pitting resistance and high corrosion resistance (applicant’s specification 4:5-19) (Remarks para. spanning pp. 27-28).
Claim 1 lines 9-10 recite “the proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure is < 10.0 volume %, the rest being austenite”. Sawada discloses “if the Cr content is excessive, δ ferrite is formed at high temperatures, and the hot workability of the steel is significantly deteriorated” ([0020]). Sawada discloses not forming δ ferrite, which satisfies the claim limitation of < 10.0 vol% ferrite. Sawada also discloses an “austenite parent phase” ([0030]), which satisfies the claim limitation of the rest of the microstructure being austenite.
The applicant argues criticality of the claimed ferrite/austenite proportions. Objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results. MPEP 716.01(c)(I). Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II). Evidence to support the alleged ferrite/austenite proportion criticality has not been presented.
The applicant argues amended claim 1 recites 16.5-18.7 wt% Cr to preferably increase resistance to martensite formation and reduce the TRIP effect (applicant’s specification 6:25-20), which is narrower than Sawada’s disclosed 10-25% Cr to prevent Cr carbides and nitrides (Sawada [0020]) (Remarks p. 28 para. 2).
The claim 1 line 4 “16.5-18.7 weight % Cr” overlaps with Sawada’s disclosed 10.0 to 25.0 % Cr (Sawada [0020]). 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 applicant argues Torizuka represses the TRIP effect (Abstract, [0043], [0062]), which teaches away from the objective of Applicant’s invention to obtain an austenitic stainless steel capable of utilizing the TRIP effect (Remarks p. 28 para. 5).
Claim 1 line 1 recites the claimed austenitic stainless steel is “capable of utilizing the TRIP effect”. However the claim does not limit how the TRIP effect is utilized. In arguendo, as applicant alleges, Torizuka repressing the TRIP effect utilizes the TRIP effect by suppression.
Furthermore, the pending rejection is over Sawada optionally in view of Torizuka. Sawada discloses utilizing the TRIP effect (Sawada [0008], [0029]) and Torizuka discloses the obviousness of limiting the ferrite to 8 vol% or less to stabilize austenite, which is relatively resistant to delayed fracture (Torizuka [0043], [0049], [0056], [0062]).
The applicant argues Torizuka discloses 8.00% by mass or more Ni is necessary as an austenite-forming element which forms a non-magnetic austenite structure ([0040]), which is greater than the claimed 4.0-6.5 wt% Ni (Remarks para. spanning pp. 28-29).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Sawada optionally in view of Torizuka discloses 3.5 to 10.0% Ni (Sawada [0021]), which overlaps with the claimed 4.0-6.5 weight % Ni. 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).
Sawada discloses preventing δ ferrite formation (Sawada [0009], [0020], [0029]-[0030]). Torizuka [0040] discloses that “As the Ni content increases, the effect of suppressing magnetization and the formation of the δ-ferrite phase becomes greater.” Therefore, even Ni of 3.5 to less than 8.00% suppresses δ-ferrite formation. Torizuka also discloses that 0 to 4.00% Cu suppresses the formation of δ-ferrite ([0041]). Sawada A18 includes 0.3% Cu and has a broader disclosure of 3.0% or less Cu ([0026]-[0027]). The Cu in Sawada contributes to δ-ferrite suppression.
For the above cited reasons, the rejection over Sawada optionally in view of Torizuka is maintained.
Bergstrom
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 29 para. 4, filed December 29, 2026, with respect to Bergstrom have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Bergstrom has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues claim 1 recites 0-1.5 wt% Mn, but Bergstrom discloses 2.0-9.0 wt% ([0026]) (Remarks p. 29 para. 4).
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
16:2-4, now [00050]-[00051], recites “a chemical composition window for Si+Cr and Cu+Mo+0,5W is established with the preferred ranges of 0,21-0,33 for C+N and 4,0-7,7 for Mn+Ni” and at 16:8-9 Table 3 defines the following labelled positions of the coordination. However, Mn+Ni includes a’ of 8.5, which is outside the preferred range of 4.0-7.7.
17:8-9, now [00052]-[00053], recites “a chemical composition window for C+N and Mn+Ni with the preferred composition ranges 16,5-19,5 for Cr+Si and 2,2-5,7 for Cu+Mo+0,5W” and at 17:13-15 that Table 5 defines the following labelled positions of the coordination. However, Si+Cr includes q’ of 16.2, which is outside the preferred range of 16.5-19.5 and the highest value is 19.0 in Table 5, not 19.5. Similarly, Cu+Mo+0.5W includes r’ and s’ of 1.8, which it outside the preferred range of 2.2-5.7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 lines 2-4 “the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area a’, b’, c’ d’, e’, f’ and g’ in Fig. 1 and is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight %” and the table reciting a’, b’, c’, d’, e’, f’, and g’ for “Si+Cr %”, “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”, “C+N %”, and “Mn+Ni %” renders the claim indefinite. Applicant’s Fig. 1 recites “Cu+Mo+0.5W” on the x-axis and “Si+Cr” on the y-axis. While the frame of the area in Fig. 1 is defined by “Si+Cr %” and “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”, it is unclear how “C+N %” and “Mn+Ni %” and the associated a’, b’, c’, d’, e’, f’, and g’ coordinates relate to Fig. 1 because they are not recited in Fig. 1. Claim 15 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of only limiting Si+Cr and Cu+Mo+0.5W to the area defined by the frame a, b, c, d, e, f, and g in Fig. 1.
Claim 16 lines 2-4 “the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area p’, q’, r’ and s’ in Fig. 3 and is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight %” and the table reciting p’, q’, r’, and s’ for “Si+Cr %”, “Cu+Mo+0.5W %”, “C+N %”, and “Mn+Ni %” renders the claim indefinite. Applicant’s Fig. 3 recites “Mn+Ni” on the x-axis and “C+N” on the y-axis. While the frame of the area in Fig. 3 is defined by “Mn+Ni %” and “C+N %”, it is unclear how “Si+Cr %” and “Cu+Mo+0.5W %” and the associated p’, q’, r’, and s’ coordinates relate to Fig. 3 because they are not recited in Fig. 3. Claim 16 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of only limiting C+N and Mn+Ni to the area defined by the frame p’, q’, s’, and r’ in Fig. 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP 2014-001422 machine translation) and optionally Torizuka (JP 2012-180542 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sawada discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0001]) capable of utilizing the TRIP effect ([0008], [0029]) for high corrosion resistance (Cr, Mo, and Cu improve corrosion resistance) ([0020], [0026]) with a composition that reads on that claimed (Table 1 A18), the proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure is < 10.0 volume %, the rest being austenite (austenitic stainless steel with stable austenite as parent phase, where Cr content is limited to prevent delta ferrite formation at high temperature) ([0009], [0020], [0029]-[0030]) obtained by quenching (cooling rate 2.0 °C/sec or higher) and heat treating the austenitic stainless steel at the temperature range of 900 - 1200 °C (900°C or higher) ([0038]). 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).
Element
Claims 1
Sawada A18
Sawada Disclosure
Sawada Citation
C
More than 0 to 0.04
0.025
0.02 to 0.30
[0019]
Si
0.2 to 0.8
0.5
3.0 or less
[0022]
Mn
0 to 1.5
1.0
0.5 to 5.0
[0023]
Cr
16.5 to 18.7
17.1
10.0 to 25.0
[0020]
Ni
4.0 to 6.5
5.0
3.5 to 10.0
[0021]
Mo
1.0 to 4.0
2.5
3.0 or less
[0026]
W
0 to 4.0
-
-
-
Cu
0 to 2.0
0.3
3.0 or less
[0026]-[0027]
N
0.20 to 0.30
0.135
0.10 to 0.40
[0024]
Fe
Rest
Balance
Balance
[0009], [0029]
One or more of
Al
0.0001 to 0.04
B
0.0001 to 0.004
Ca
0.0001 to 0.004
Ce
00001 to 0.1
Co
0.0001 to 0.1
Nb
0.0001 to 0.1
0.001
0.50 or less
[0028]
Ti
0.0001 to 0.1
0.08
0.10 or less
[0028]
V
0.0001 to 0.2
0.001
1.0 or less
[0028]
In Sawada Table 1 A18 0.135% N is outside the claimed ranges of 0.20 to 0.30% N.
Sawada discloses 0.10 to 0.40% N ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the A18 alloy of Sawada to vary the N content between 0.10 to 0.40% to effectively increase strength at a high strain rate by solid solution strengthening without causing deterioration in ductility at low strain rates ([0024]). 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 limitation of the austenitic stainless steel having “a balanced pitting resistance equivalent” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition (Sawada Table 1 A18, [0024]), structure (Sawada [0009], [0020], [0029]-[0030]), and processing (Sawada [0038]) that is substantially similar to that claimed such that the properties of the prior art naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a balanced pitting resistance equivalent.
In the event it is determined that Sawada’s disclosure of austenitic stainless steel with stable austenite as parent phase, where Cr content is limited to prevent delta ferrite formation at high temperature ([0009], [0020], [0029]-[0030]) does not overlap with and render prima facie obvious the claimed proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure being 0-10.0 volume % and the rest being austenite, then the below rejection in view of Torizuka is applied.
Torizuka discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0025]) wherein the proportion of the ferrite phase in the microstructure is 0-10.0 volume % (8 vol% or less), the rest being austenite ([0043], [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Sawada for the ferrite fraction to be controlled to 8 vol% or less so that the austenite phase is stable and there is no more than a slight amount of magnetism is observed that poses no practical problem (Torizuka [0043], [0049], [0062]) and the austenite steel is relatively resistant to delayed fracture (Torizuka [0056]). 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).
Regarding claim 2, Sawada Table 1 A18 has a pitting resistance equivalent value (PRE) in the range of 27- 35 (27.5); and PRE = %Cr + 3.3(%Mo+0.5%W)+16N.
Further, for Sawada modified Table 1 alloy A18 with N of 0.10 to 0.40%, the PRE is 27.0 to 31.8 (PRE = %Cr + 3.3(%Mo+0.5%W)+16N, applicant’s specification 12:15-17). 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).
Regarding claim 3, Sawada Table 1 A18 discloses the calculated Md30 temperature is in the range of -70 to +60 °C (23.9°C).
Regarding claim 4, Sawada Table 1 A18 has a stacking fault energy (SFE) in the range of 10.0- 16.OmJ/m2 (12.9 mJ/m2) (SFE (mJ/m2)= 2.2 +1.9Ni – 2.9Si + 0.77Mo + 0.5Mn + 40C – 0.016Cr – 3.6N, applicant’s specification 15:8-13).
Further, for Sawada modified Table 1 alloy A18 with N of 0.10 to 0.40%, the SFE is 12.0 to 13.0 mJ/m2 (SFE (mJ/m2)= 2.2 +1.9Ni – 2.9Si + 0.77Mo + 0.5Mn + 40C – 0.016Cr – 3.6N, applicant’s specification 15:8-13). 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).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of the austenitic stainless steel “critical pitting temperature (CPT) is 30-50 °C” has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition (Sawada Table 1 A18, [0024]), structure (Sawada [0009], [0020], [0029]-[0030]), and processing (Sawada [0038]) that is substantially similar to that claimed such that the properties of the prior art naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a critical pitting temperature CPT of 30-50 °C.
Regarding claim 7, Sawada Table 1 A18 discloses the nickel content is 4.5-6.2 weight % (5.0%).
Regarding claim 9, Sawada Table 1 A18 discloses the copper content is 0-1.5 weight % (0.3%).
Regarding claim 11, Sawada Table 1 A18 discloses the sum of the molybdenum (Mo) and tungsten (W) contents according to the formula (Mo + 0.5W) is in the range 1.0-4.0 weight % (2.5%).
Regarding claim 12, Sawada discloses the nitrogen content is 0.21 - 0.29 weight % (0.10 to 0.40%) ([0024]). 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).
Regarding claim 14, Sawada discloses the stainless steel contains as inevitable impurities 0.0001-0.010 weight %, preferably 0.0001-0.005 weight % S (0.03% or less S), 0.0001-0.040 weight % P (0.05% or less P) so that the sum (S+P) is 0.0001-0.04 weight % (0.08% or less S+P) ([0029]), and the total oxygen content is in the range 0- 100 ppm (0 ppm) ([0018]-[0029]). 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).
Regarding claim 15, Sawada discloses the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area a', b', c', d', e', f and g' in Fig. 1, is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight % (Table 1 A18, [0024]). 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Si+Cr %
Cu+Mo+0.5W %
C+N %
Mn+Ni %
Sawada Table 1 A18, [0024]
17.6
2.8
0.125 to 0.425
6.0
Regarding claim 16, Sawada discloses the chemical composition window, which lies within the frame of the area p', q' r' and s' in Fig. 3, is defined with the following labelled positions of the coordination in weight % (Table 1 A18, [0024]). 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).
PNG
media_image2.png
160
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Si+Cr %
Cu+Mo+0.5W %
C+N %
Mn+Ni %
Sawada Table 1 A18, [0024]
17.6
2.8
0.125 to 0.425
6.0
Regarding claim 17, Sawada discloses the steel is produced in a form selected from a group consisting of an ingot, a slab, a bloom, a billet, a plate, a sheet, a strip, a coil, a bar, a rod, a wire, profiles, a seamless tube, a seamless pipe, a welded tube, a welded pipe, and a metallic powder (ingot, sheet) ([0039]-[0042]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP 2014-001422 machine translation) and optionally Torizuka (JP 2012-180542 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 2015/0083283).
Regarding claim 10, Sawada is silent to a tungsten content of 1.0-3.8 weight %.
Inoue discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0001], [0011]) with a tungsten content of 1.0-3.8 weight% (3% or less) ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Sawada to include 3% or less tungsten to improve high-temperature strength and creep resistance without impairing structural stability (Inoue [0055]). 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).
Related Art
Sawada (JP 2014-001422 machine translation)
Sawada discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0001]) utilizing the TRIP effect ([0008], [0029]) with a composition that reads on that claimed (Table 1 A13, A18).
Element
Claim 1
Sawada A7
Sawada A13
C
0 to 0.04
0.020
0.023
Si
0.2 to 0.8
0.5
0.5
Mn
0 to 1.5
1.4
1.0
Cr
16.5 to 18.7
17.7
17.1
Ni
4.0 to 6.5
3.9
5.0
Mo
1.0 to 4.0
0.3
2.5
W
0 to 4.0
-
-
Cu
0 to 2.0
0.3
0.3
N
0.20 to 0.30
0.255
0.133
Fe
Rest
Balance
Balance
Ti
-
0.001
0.001
Nb
-
0.001
0.001
V
-
0.001
0.001
Inoue (US 2015/0083283)
Inoue discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0001], [0011]) with an overlapping composition ([0021]-[0036], [0038]-[0057]).
Element
Claim 1
Inoue Table 1 No. 3
Inoue Disclosure
Inoue Citation
C
0 to 0.04
0.04
0.03 to 0.06
[0039]
Si
0.2 to 0.8
0.2
1 or less
[0041]
Mn
0 to 1.5
2
3 or less
[0042]
Cr
16.5 to 18.7
18
15 to 20
[0046]
Ni
4.0 to 6.5
8
5 to 12
[0045]
Mo
1.0 to 4.0
-
3 or less
[0054]
W
0 to 4.0
-
3 or less
[0055]
Cu
0 to 2.0
-
1 or less
[0052]
N
0.20 to 0.30
0.25
0.1 to 0.3
[0040]
Fe
Rest
Balance
Balance
[0035]
P
-
0.02
0.04 or less
[0043]
S
-
0.0005
0.03 or less
[0044]
Al
-
0.05
0.01 to 0.06
[0047]
Nb
-
0.3
0.05 to 0.3
[0048]
V
-
0.14
0.05 to 0.15
[0049]
Ti
-
0.03
0.03 or less
[0050]
Bergstrom ‘238 (US 2009/0162238)
Bergstrom ‘238 discloses an austenitic stainless steel ([0003], [0012]) with an overlapping composition ([0012]-[0015], [0020]-[0037]) with a PREW greater than 26 and as high as 30 ([0040]-[0041]), a ferrite number, FN, up to 11 ([0042]), an MD30 of less than -10°C ([0043]), and an overlapping critical pitting temperature (CPT, 23.8, 29.2, or 29.8) ([0051], Table 1).
Element
Claim 1
Bergstrom ‘238 Disclosure
Bergstrom ‘238 Citation
C
0 to 0.04
0.03 to 0.06
[0039]
Si
0.2 to 0.8
1 or less
[0041]
Mn
0 to 1.5
3 or less
[0042]
Cr
16.5 to 18.7
15 to 20
[0046]
Ni
4.0 to 6.5
5 to 12
[0045]
Mo
1.0 to 4.0
3 or less
[0054]
W
0 to 4.0
3 or less
[0055]
Cu
0 to 2.0
1 or less
[0052]
N
0.20 to 0.30
0.1 to 0.3
[0040]
Fe
Rest
Balance
[0035]
P
-
0.04 or less
[0043]
S
-
0.03 or less
[0044]
Al
-
0.01 to 0.06
[0047]
Nb
-
0.05 to 0.3
[0048]
V
-
0.05 to 0.15
[0049]
Ti
-
0.03 or less
[0050]
Yamamoto (US 4,897,132)
Yamamoto discloses an austenitic stainless steel (1:10-13) with an overlapping composition (2:31-38, 2:64 to 6:28).
Element
Claim 1
Yamamoto
Table 1 Ex. 22
Yamamoto Disclosure
Yamamoto Citation
C
0 to 0.04
0.03
0.03 to 0.09
2:64 to 3:15
Si
0.2 to 0.8
0.6
2.0 or less
3:16-27
Mn
0 to 1.5
1.6
3.0 or less
3:28-41
Cr
16.5 to 18.7
16.0
15 to 19.5
4:22-43
Ni
4.0 to 6.5
11.2
6 to 15
4:4-21
Mo
1.0 to 4.0
2.3
1 to 5
4:66 to 5:16
W
0 to 4.0
2.0
0.5 to 5
5:53-59
Cu
0 to 2.0
-
-
-
N
0.20 to 0.30
0.13
0.11 to 0.3
3:42 to 4:3
Fe
Rest
Balance
Balance
2:31-38
Ti
-
0.08
0.002 to 0.5
5:35-43
V
-
0.09
0.01 to 1.0
4:44-65
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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 WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735