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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 21, 2026 has been entered.
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 copies of EP 20201101.1 filed October 9, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2022/074229, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP2021/077932 filed October 8, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed May 21, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
May 21, 2026
Amended
1, 2, 4-10, 13-15, 17
Cancelled
11, 12, 16
Under Examination
1-10, 13-15, 17
The applicant argues support for the claim amendments in [0003], [0009], [0013]-[0017], [0022], [0029], [0032], [0036]-[0041], [0052], and [0055] (p. 8 para. 1).
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 8 lines 2-3 “to maintain the material properties of the steel”.
Claim 10 line 3 reciting the broad recitation “below 200°C” and claim 10 lines 3-4 reciting more narrowly “suitably to room temperature”.
Claim 13 lines 3-4 “melting…for stainless steel production; atomizing stainless steel…”.
Claim 13 lines 5-8 “atomizing stainless steel into atomized metallic powder; further processing the stainless steel by rolling, pressing or forming into billets, sheets, strips, coils, bars, rods, wires, profiles and shapes, seamless and welded tubes and/or pipes, formed shapes, near net shape powder metallurgy and profiles”.
Response to Remarks filed May 21, 2026
Komuro (JP 2016-084493 machine translation) in view of Davis (Davis, ed. ASM Specialty Handbook® Stainless Steels. ASM International. 1994. Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless steels. Melting and Refining Methods. Heat Treating.)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to Komuro have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Komuro in view of Davis has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Komuro does not teach applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching to thereby suppress spinodal decomposition of the stainless steel (p. 9 para. 2) because Komuro applies a magnetic field to promote spinodal decomposition (Komuro [0013], [0014]) (p. 9 para. 3).
The applicant also persuasively argues Komuro applies a magnetic field in the rolling/pressing direction to control crystallographic orientation ([0013], [0015]-[0017]) in a manner that does not encompass the entire workpiece during an industrial cooling or quenching as required by claim 1 (para. spanning pp. 9-10).
Reen in view of Komuro
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 9-10, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to Komuro and to Reen in view of Komuro have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Reen in view of Komuro has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Komuro applies a magnetic field to promote spinodal decomposition (Komuro [0013], [0014]) (p. 9 para. 3) in the rolling/pressing direction to control crystallographic orientation ([0013], [0015]-[0017]) in a manner that does not encompass the entire workpiece during an industrial cooling or quenching as required by claim 1 (para. spanning pp. 9-10).
The applicant also persuasively argues Reen and Komuro are incompatible steel types and are not the steel grades for which spinodal decomposition and 475°C embrittlement are relevant (p. 10 para. 4), where Reen is directed to high-speed tool steels and martensitic stainless and Komuro is directed to duplex austenitic-ferritic grades (Komuro [0020], [0029]), such that there is no suggestion that applying Komuro’s magnetic field treatment to Reen’s martensitic/tool steel grades would suppress spinodal decomposition (p. 10 para. 5).
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration a new grounds of rejection is made over Bassett in view of Bates.
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 1-10, 13-15, and 17 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 1 lines 17-18 “the quenching includes at least one of…in-line spraying…” and lines 22-23 “an entirety of the stainless steel is encompassed by the magnetic field during the cooling or quenching” render the claim indefinite. In-line spraying is commonly used in a continuous process. It is unclear how the stainless steel can be quenched by a continuous in-line spraying while also applying a magnetic field during quenching (claim 1 lines 10-11) that encompasses an entirety of the stainless steel. For the purpose of examination claim 1 will be interpreted as limited to batch quenching in a water tank.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 9 line 2 “in-line annealing” renders the claim indefinite. In-line annealing is commonly used in a continuous process. It is unclear how the stainless steel can be continuously in-line annealed while also applying a magnetic field during quenching after annealing (claim 1 lines 7-11) that encompasses an entirety of the stainless steel (claim 1 lines 22-23). For the purpose of examination claim 9 will be interpreted as limited to batch annealing.
Claim 10 lines 6-7 “the quenching includes at least one of…in-line spraying…” renders the claim indefinite. In-line spraying is commonly used in a continuous process. It is unclear how the stainless steel can be quenched by a continuous in-line spraying while also applying a magnetic field during quenching (claim 1 lines 10-11) that encompasses an entirety of the stainless steel (claim 1 lines 22-23). For the purpose of examination claim 10 will be interpreted as limited to batch quenching in a water tank.
Claim 13 is rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 14 lines 5-6 “the quenching includes at least one of…in-line spraying…” renders the claim indefinite. In-line spraying is commonly used in a continuous process. It is unclear how the stainless steel can be quenched by a continuous in-line spraying while also applying a magnetic field during quenching (claim 1 lines 10-11) that encompasses an entirety of the stainless steel (claim 1 lines 22-23). For the purpose of examination claim 14 will be interpreted as limited to batch quenching in a water tank.
Claim 15 lines 5-6 “the quenching includes at least one of…in-line spraying…” renders the claim indefinite. In-line spraying is commonly used in a continuous process. It is unclear how the stainless steel can be quenched by a continuous in-line spraying while also applying a magnetic field during quenching (claim 1 lines 10-11) that encompasses an entirety of the stainless steel (claim 1 lines 22-23). For the purpose of examination claim 15 will be interpreted as limited to batch quenching.
Claim 17 is rejected as depending from claim 1.
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, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 3,188,248) in view of Bates (Bates et al. Quenching of Steel. ASM Handbook, Volume 4: Heat Treating. ASM Handbook Committee, p. 67-120. (1991)).
Regarding claim 1, Bassett discloses a method of a (age-hardening, type 431, martensitic) stainless steel production process (5:50, 6:7-8, 7:7-8) comprising the steps of:
manufacturing (age-hardening, type 431, martensitic) stainless steel (part) (3:39-45, 5:24-25, 50, 6:7-8, 7:7-8) ;
wherein the stainless steel is ferrite containing stainless steel or martensite containing stainless steel (age-hardening martensite, type 431 martensite, martensitic) (5:50, 6:7-8, 7:7-8);
annealing (austenitizing, heating) the stainless steel at an annealing temperature (between about 1500°F and 2500°F, about 816°C to 1371°C) (2:52-55, 5:24-33);
cooling the stainless steel or quenching the stainless steel (quenching) (2:56-57, 5:34 to 6:23); and
applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching (magnetic quenching) (2:56-57, 5:34 to 6:23) to thereby suppress spinodal decomposition (restrain developing long-needle arrangement by resistance to crystal growth and orientation of crystals) of the stainless steel (7:11 to 8:6);
wherein the cooling or quenching reduces a temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to below 350°C (quench bath in the range of about 200°F to 500°F, about 93°C to 260°C) (5:34-57);
wherein:
the quenching includes at least one of batch quenching in tanks (quench tank) and in-line spraying of the stainless steel (4:4-55, 5:40-45, Fig. 1); and
the cooling includes air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling;
wherein the magnetic field has a field strength of greater than 0.2T (field intensities of 750 gauss to 1500 gauss, 0.075 T to 0.15 T, with even higher intensities being effectively employed) (6:15-23); and
wherein an entirety of the stainless steel is encompassed by the magnetic field during the cooling or quenching (4:4-55, 5:40-45, Fig. 1).
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).
Bassett discloses a bath of quenching liquid (4:36-37).
Bassett is silent to the quenching including at least one of batch quenching in water tanks.
Bates discloses water and water containing salt are common liquid quenchants (p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention for the quenching process of Bassett to use water because it is a common liquid quenchant (Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3). Bates discloses the effect of quenchant type, including water (Bates p. 74 col. 3 para. 4 to p. 75 col. 3 para. 3), such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to control the parameters of quenching the martensite stainless steel of Bassett in water to achieve the disclosed effects.
The limitation of the claimed method suppressing embrittlement of stainless steel has been considered and determined to recite a property, function, or characteristic that naturally flows from the claimed process. The prior art discloses a process that is substantially similar to that claimed (Bassett 2:52-57, 3:39-45, 4:4-55, 5:24 to 6:23, 7:7 to 8:6, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3) to improve plasticity, ductility, malleability for shaping, finishing, and forming (Bassett 1:14 to 2:38, 7:13-54), which are related to suppressing embrittlement. Therefore, the claimed property, function, or characteristic naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art, including the method suppressing embrittlement of stainless steel.
In the event it is determined that Bassett does not explicitly disclose applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching to thereby suppress spinodal decomposition, then the following rationale is applied.
The prior art discloses a process that is substantially similar to that claimed (Bassett 2:52-57, 3:39-45, 4:4-55, 5:24 to 6:23, 7:7 to 8:6, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3), including application of a magnetic field with a prima facie obvious field strength during quenching after annealing (Bassett 2:56-57, 5:34 to 6:23), such that the claimed properties, functions, or characteristics naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art, including suppressing spinodal decomposition by applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching.
Regarding claim 7, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the annealing (austenitizing, heating) includes raising the temperature of the stainless steel in excess of 900°C (between about 1500°F and 2500°F, about 816°C to 1371°C) to homogenize the stainless steel and soften and dissolve secondary phases (austenitizing) (Bassett 2:52-55, 5:24-33). 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 8, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel below a temperature (quench bath in the range of about 200°F to 500°F, about 93°C to 260°C) (2:56-57, 5:34 to 6:23) at which spinodal decomposition occurs (restrain developing long-needle arrangement by resistance to crystal growth and orientation or crystals) (7:11 to 8:6).
In the event it is determined that Bassett does not explicitly disclose cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel below a temperature at which spinodal decomposition occurs, then the following rationale is applied.
The prior art discloses a process that is substantially similar to that claimed (Bassett 2:52-57, 3:39-45, 4:4-55, 5:24 to 6:23, 7:7 to 8:6, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3), including application of a magnetic field with a prima facie obvious field strength during quenching after annealing and a prima facie obvious quench temperature (Bassett 2:56-57, 5:34 to 6:23), such that the claimed properties, functions, or characteristics naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art, including cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel below a temperature at which spinodal decomposition occurs.
Regarding claim 10, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to below 200°C (quench bath in the range of about 200°F to 500°F, about 93°C to 260°C) (Bassett 5:34-57); and
wherein:
the quenching includes at least one of batch quenching in water tanks (quench tank of water) or in-line spraying of the stainless steel (Bassett 4:4-55, 5:40-45, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3); and
the cooling includes air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling.
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, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to 150 °C or below (quench bath in the range of about 200°F to 500°F, about 93°C to 260°C) (Bassett 5:34-57); and
wherein:
the quenching includes at least one of batch quenching in water tanks (quench tank of water) or in-line spraying of the stainless steel (Bassett 4:4-55, 5:40-45, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3); and
the cooling includes air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling.
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, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the cooling or quenching reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to room temperature (magnetic quench bath in the range of about 200°F to 500°F, about 93°C to 260°C, followed by secondary quench to approximately room temperature) (Bassett 2:56-59, 5:24 to 6:45); and
wherein:
the quenching includes at least one of batch quenching in water tanks (magnetic quench tank of water, secondary quench water bath) (Bassett 4:44-58, 5:40-45, 6:24-44, Fig. 1; Bates p. 67 col. 1 paras. 1-3) or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling includes air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling.
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 17, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field has a field strength of up to 3.0T (field intensities of 750 gauss to 1500 gauss, 0.075 T to 0.15 T, with even higher intensities being effectively employed) (Bassett 6:15-23). 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).
Claims 2-6, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 3,188,248) in view of Bates (Bates et al. Quenching of Steel. ASM Handbook, Volume 4: Heat Treating. ASM Handbook Committee, p. 67-120. (1991)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis (Davis, ed. ASM Specialty Handbook® Stainless Steels. ASM International. 1994. Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless Steels. Melting and Refining Methods. Heat Treating.).
Regarding claim 2, Bassett discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above.
Bassett is silent to the manufacturing including melting, casting, and further processing as instantly claimed.
Davis discloses a method of stainless steel producing comprising manufacturing stainless steel in a convention stainless steel manufacturing process (Melting and Refining Methods pp. 120-125; Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Plate, Sheet, Strip, Foil, Bar pp. 38-41) wherein the manufacturing includes:
melting at least one of a raw material or a scrap material for stainless steel production to form a melted raw material or a melted scrap material, respectively (Melting and Refining Methods p. 120, p. 122 Processing);
casting the melted raw material or the melted scrap material into ingots, slabs, or blooms (Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Sheet pp. 38-39); and
further processing the ingots, slabs, or blooms by rolling, pressing, or forming into billets, plates, sheets, strips, coils, bars, rods, wires, profiles and shapes, seamless and welded tubes and/or pipes, formed shapes, and profiles (rolling or forged material) (Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Sheet pp. 38-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention in the process of Bassett to manufacture the stainless steel using a conventional stainless steel manufacturing process of melting and refining to produce the desired grade of stainless steel with reduced cost and improved quality (Davis Melting and Refining Methods p. 120) followed by forming into a sheet, which is produced in nearly all types of stainless steel (Davis Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Sheet p. 38).
Regarding claim 3, Bassett in view of Bates and David discloses the method according to claim 2 as cited above, wherein the at least one of the raw material or the scrap material is melted in an electric arc furnace with or without vacuum oxygen decarburization (Davis Melting and Refining Methods: Vacuum Oxygen Decarburization, p. 120, 124).
Regarding claim 4, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1.
Bassett in view of Bates is silent to the manufacturing including tapping the stainless steel into a mould.
Davis discloses a method of stainless steel producing comprising manufacturing stainless steel in a convention stainless steel manufacturing process (Melting and Refining Methods pp. 120-125; Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Plate, Sheet, Strip, Foil, Bar pp. 38-41) wherein the manufacturing includes: tapping the stainless steel into a mould (crucible) (Davis Melting and Refining Methods: Special Melting Processes, pp. 124-125, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the manufacturing process of Bassett to tap stainless steel into a mould because this is part of a conventional melting process that includes refining to produce stainless steel of higher purity and lower nonmetallic inclusion (David Melting and Refining Methods: Special Melting Processes, pp. 124-15, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above.
Bassett in view of Bates is silent to the manufacturing including tapping the stainless steel into a mould.
Davis discloses a method of stainless steel producing comprising manufacturing stainless steel in a convention stainless steel manufacturing process (Melting and Refining Methods pp. 120-125; Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Plate, Sheet, Strip, Foil, Bar pp. 38-41) wherein the manufacturing includes: tapping the stainless steel into a copper mould (crucible) (Davis Melting and Refining Methods: Special Melting Processes, pp. 124-125, Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the manufacturing process of Bassett to tap stainless steel into a copper mould because this is part of a conventional melting process that includes refining to produce stainless steel of higher purity and lower nonmetallic inclusion (David Melting and Refining Methods: Special Melting Processes, pp. 124-15, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above.
Bassett in view of Bates is silent to the manufacturing including processing the stainless steel by continuously casting the stainless steel into slabs.
Davis discloses a method of stainless steel producing comprising manufacturing stainless steel in a convention stainless steel manufacturing process (Melting and Refining Methods pp. 120-125; Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Plate, Sheet, Strip, Foil, Bar pp. 38-41) wherein the manufacturing includes: processing the stainless steel by continuously casting the stainless steel into slabs (Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Sheets p. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to continuously cast the stainless steel into slabs because stainless steel sheet is produced in nearly all types of stainless steel for grater production that are further produced into cut sheets (Davis Metallurgy and Properties of Wrought Stainless: Product Forms: Sheets p. 38).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 3,188,248) in view of Bates (Bates et al. Quenching of Steel. ASM Handbook, Volume 4: Heat Treating. ASM Handbook Committee, p. 67-120. (1991)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2017/0327916).
Regarding claim 9, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1 as cited above, wherein the annealing (austenitizing, heating) is carried out at the annealing temperature in excess of 900°C (between about 1500°F and 2500°F, about 816°C to 1371°C) (2:52-55, 5:24-33).
Bassett in view of Bates is silent to the annealing being carried out in a batch furnace for batch annealing or by in-line annealing.
Lee discloses a method of stainless steel production ([0040]) comprising an annealing step carried out in batch furnaces for batch annealing or in-line annealing (batch annealing) ([0028], [0041], [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instantly claimed invention in the process of Bassett in view of Bates to batch anneal because it is easily applied to stainless steel manufacturing processes (Lee [0041]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassett (US 3,188,248) in view of Bates (Bates et al. Quenching of Steel. ASM Handbook, Volume 4: Heat Treating. ASM Handbook Committee, p. 67-120. (1991)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reen (US 3,150,444) and Warzel (Warzel. Manufacture of Stainless Steel Powders. ASM Handbook, Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy. P. Samal and J. Newkirk, editors. 2015.).
Regarding claim 13, Bassett in view of Bates discloses the method according to claim 1.
Bassett in view of Bates is silent to the manufacturing including melting and atomizing as instantly claimed.
Reen discloses a stainless steel production process (9:63 to 10:22), wherein the manufacturing includes: atomizing into an atomized metallic powder (9:63-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the manufacturing method of Bassett in view of Bates to produce the stainless steel by atomizing to produce a preferred structure (Reen 1:9-16) with a fine, uniform dispersion (Reen 2:42-45) and a density approximately equivalent to that of a cast material (Reen 6:41-48).
Bassett in view of Bates and Reen is silent to atomizing melted raw material or melted scrap material.
Warzel discloses stainless steel powder atomization includes atomizing melted raw material or melted scrap material into an atomized metallic powder (Water Atomization of Stainless Steel Powders: Raw Materials and Melting, Table 1, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when atomizing the stainless steel powder of Bassett in view of Bates and Reen to melt raw material to that it can be poured into a tundish and emerge as a molten stream ready for water atomization (Warzel Water Atomization of Stainless Steel Powders: Raw Materials and Melting, fig. 2).
Related Art
Liu (CN 110819898 machine translation)
Liu disclose a stainless steel manufacturing process ([0002], [0008], [0048]-[0055], [0058], [0062], [0064]).
Li (CN 105695671 machine translation)
Li discloses a heat treatment process for magnetic steel ([0002]) by annealing a cast billet to form a single solid solution ([0008], [0019]-[0021]) then magnetic field air quenching or magnetic field air cooling in a magnetic field with a strength of 240 kA/m (0.3 T) ([0011], [0022]) followed by low-temperature preheating to 600 to 650°C ([0012], [0023]), such that air quenching or air cooling is necessary below 600 to 650°C.
Shimotomai (US 5,885,370)
Shimotomai discloses heat treatment of steel including exposure to a magnetic field (1:5-12) after austenitization at 870°C and during immersion (cooling) in a lead bath at 560°C at 1 or 10 T/m (2:54-62, 3:9-20, 5:7-32), which increases Vickers hardness (3:1-3). Shimotomai discloses the effects of applying a magnetic field (4:5-47) and that the steel includes a ferrite base stainless steel or martensite base stainless steel (5:1-6).
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-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
Prosecution Insights