DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majka (US 2016/0251737).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10-12, Majka discloses a forged martensitic stainless steel having a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract]. The examiner notes that the compositional ranges of Majka are identical to that as claimed. See MPEP 2131.03. Majka further teaches that the steel is used for turbine airfoils (which would naturally include a preform of said airfoil) and has zero delta, leaves, chi, and sigma phases [abstract, 0016].
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 7 (wt.%)
Majka (wt.%)
Cr
12 – 16
12 – 16
Co
16 – 20
16 – 20
Mo
6 – 8
6 – 8
Ni
1 – 3
1 – 3
C
0.02 – 0.04
0.02 – 0.04
Fe & impurities
Balance
Balance
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (JP2014208869, machine translation referred to herein).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-14, Sato et al. discloses a forged, martensitic stainless steel having a composition as seen in table 2 below [0006, 0014]. The examiner notes that the composition of Sato et al. overlaps with and is substantially close to that as claimed which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Specifically, regarding closeness, the examiner notes that the upper limit of 16 weight percent of Sato et al. is substantially close to the claimed Co amount of greater than 16 weight percent such that similar properties are expected such as similar toughness values of 20 J charpy impact energy relative to those achieved in the instant specification [0022].
Sato et al. is silent regarding the presence of any austenite phase, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that austenite is not present (ie. the steel is entirely martensite) absent a specific teaching to the contrary. Sato et al. further expressly teaches away from the formation of austenite, which further bolsters the examiner’s above position [0015].
Sato et al. is further silent regarding the presence of any sigma phase, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that sigma phases are not present. Furthermore, [0019, 0029 instant spec.] teaches that sigma phase directly influences toughness properties and that an absence of sigma phases achieves a desirable charpy impact toughness of 20 J. Sato et al. also discloses a toughness of 20 J as stated above, which further bolsters the examiner’s above position that the steel of Sato et al. is absent any sigma phases because Sato et al. does not teach the presence of sigma phases and further expressly teaches the same properties achieved by the absence of said sigma phases.
Table 2.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 7 (wt.%)
Sato et al. (wt.%)
Cr
12 – 16
8 – 13
Co
16 – 20
2 – 16
Mo
6 – 8
3.5 – 8
Ni
1 – 3
2 – 8
C
0.02 – 0.04
0.03 – 0.06
Fe & impurities
Balance
Balance
Regarding claims 4-5, 10-11, and 15-16, Sato et al. discloses the steel of claims 1, 7, and 13 (see previous). Sato et al. further teaches that precipitation of delta ferrite avoided (ie. zero percent delta ferrite) [0010-0011]. Sato et al. is silent regarding the presence of any laves and chi phases, which one of ordinary skill would understand to mean that these phases are not present. Furthermore, [0019, 0029 instant spec.] teaches that laves and chi phases directly influence toughness properties and that an absence of laves and chi phases achieves a desirable charpy impact toughness of 20 J. Sato et al. also discloses a toughness of 20 J as stated above, which further bolsters the examiner’s above position that the steel of Sato et al. is absent any laves and chi phases because Sato et al. does not teach the presence of laves and chi phases and further expressly teaches the same properties achieved by the absence of said laves and chi phases.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 17, Sato et al. discloses the steel of claims 1, 7, and 13 (see previous). Sato et al. further teaches utilizing the steel for turbine blade parts, which would naturally require the shape of a “preform” as claimed [0020].
Conclusion
No claims allowable.
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights