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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claim 4 is cancelled; Claims 1-2 are amended; Claims 5-8 and 10-11 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims; Claims 1-3 and 9 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/13/2026.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (JP 2018009231 A1, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 03/24/2023, thereafter JP’231) in view of Senoo (US-PG-pub 2020/0071790 A1, thereafter PG’790) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/13/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 4/13/2026, newly recorded prior art(s), and reconsideration, the new ground rejection is listed as following:
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibuki et al (JP 2007277639 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’639) in view of Senoo (US-PG-pub 2020/0071790 A1, thereafter PG’790).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, JP’639 teaches a martensitic steel exhibiting high hardness/high corrosion resistance with carbide. (Abstract, par.[0013], and examples of JP’639), which reads on the claimed martensite-based stainless steel as claimed in the instant claims. The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges disclosed by example #2 in table 1 JP’639 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’639 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges (cl.1-2); and the hardness of the example #2 in table 1 of JP’639 after quenching and tempering (par.[0030] of JP’638) is within the claimed hardness range (cl.3 and 9)(HRC 58.5 can be converted to HV 653 according to ASTM E140-97).
Still regarding claim 1, JP’639 teaches forming carbide in the martensite steel alloy, but JP’936 does not specify the claimed average grain diameter of carbides and number density of 10 mm or more as claimed in the instant claim 1. PG’790 teaches a martensite-based stainless steel strip (par.[0002], [0007], and [0032] of PG’790) with all of the essential alloy composition ranges (claims, par.[0017]-[0027] of PG’790) overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges as recited in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. PG’790 teaches including hard inclusion and precipitate carbide (par.[0018], and [0029]-[0030] of PG’790) and JP’790 teaches that an average diameter of the carbide in the steel strip for a blade is 0.30 to 0.45 μm in order to obtain precipitating hardening effect and there is no particle more than 10mm (Fig.1, par.[0010], [0012], and [0029]-[0030] of PG’790), which is within the claimed range of the average diameter and number density (10 mm or more) of the carbide in the instant claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to applying precipitated carbide with the average diameter of the carbide as disclosed in PG’790 in the martensitic steel sheet of JP’639 in order to obtain desired precipitating hardening effect (Fig.1, par.[0010], [0012], and [0029]-[0030] of PG’790).
Element
From instant Claim 1 (mass %)
From #2 in table 1 of JP’639 (mass %)
within range
(mass %)
C
0.30-0.60
0.54
0.54
Si
0.05-1.00
0.40
0.40
Mn
0.05-1.50
0.39
0.39
P
0.04 or less
0.026
0.026
S
0.03 or less
0.013
0.013
Cr
13.0-18.0
16.00
16.00
Ni
0.01-0.30
0.12
0.12
Mo
0.41-1.00
0.50
0.50
Al
0.03 or less
0.015
0.015
N
0.020-0.350
0.10
0.10
Ca
0.0001-0.0030
--
0.0002-0.1
--
Overlapping range
0.0001-0.0030
O
0.001-0.010
0.0033
0.0033
2.5C + N
1.10 or more
1.45
1.45
Fe
Balance +impurities
Balance +impurities
Balance +impurities
From instant Claim 2 (mass %)
From #A5 in table 1 of JP’231 (mass %)
Within range (mass %)
At least one of
V: 0.5 or less;
Nb: 0.30 or less;
Ti: 0.3 or less;
Cu: 4.0 or less;
Sn: 0.100 or less;
B: 0.0050 or less;
Co: 0.30 or less
V: 0.05;
Cu: 0.05;
B: 0.0015
V: 0.05;
Cu: 0.05;
B: 0.0015
From instant Claims 3 and 9
From example #2 in table 3 of JP’639
Hardness (HV)
500 or more
HRC 58.5 (converted to HV 653 ASTM E140-97)
Reads on
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-3 and 9 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights