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 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 December 11, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 11, 2025
Amended
1-11
New
13-17
Under Examination
1-17
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Legal phraseology “comprising”.
Withdrawn Claim Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 1 inconsistency of lines 5 and 7 “the stainless steel” and line 6 “the steel”.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 2 line 3 “raw/scrap”.
Claim 2 line 4 “casting stainless steel into…atomized metallic powder”.
Claim 3 line 1 “the raw material”.
Claim 4 line 2 “the stainless steel is tapped into a mould”.
Claim 5 line 2 “the stainless steel is tapped into a copper mould”.
Claim 6 line 2 “the stainless steel is continuously cast into slabs”.
Claim 9 line 2 “in batch furnaces for batch annealing or in-line annealing”.
Claim 10 lines 4-5 “(batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spaying)…(as air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling)”.
Claim 11 lines 2-3 recite the broad recitation “>0.2 T”, and the claim 11 line 3 also recites “preferably >1.0T” and “suitably 1.5T to 3.0T” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Response to Remarks filed December 11, 2025
112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 8 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues amendment of claims 8 and 10 for definiteness (Remarks p. 8 paras. 4, 7).
The claim amendments do not clarify in claim 8 what the material properties of the stainless steel are being maintained at and whether or not they are maintained before and after cooling or after being achieved by cooling or quenching. The claim amendments also do not remove the broad and narrow recitations of claim 10, which in lines 3-4 cooling or quench to broadly “below 200°C” and narrowly to “suitably to room temperature”.
Komuro in view of Davis
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 with respect to Komuro in view of David have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues claim 1 has been amended for definiteness and to incorporate claim 10 limitations (Remarks p. 9 para. 5), where applicant’s [0024], [0030]-[0031], and Fig. 4 distinguish “slow” furnace cooling from “fast” air cooling, with fast cooling being critical to applicant’s claimed invention (Remarks p. 10 para. 2).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fast air cooling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Amended claim 1 lines 10-16 limits quenching to batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying or cooling to forced air or natural cooling. The process of Komuro cools in the furnace to below 460°C ([0021], [0030], [0043]), which reads on “the cooling step comprises air cooling…by…natural cooling”.
The applicant argues Komuro’s range of below 460°C does not anticipate below 350°C, which is critical (applicant’s specification [0030]) (Remarks p. 10 para. 3).
Komuro’s disclosed cooling below 460°C overlaps with the claimed range of cooling to a temperature below 350°C such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
To establish unexpected results (criticality) 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 substantiate the allegation of cooling below 350°C as critical has not been presented.
The applicant argues Komuro teaches away from fast cooling (by quenching or air cooling) to below 350°C because Komuro’s slow furnace cooling below 460°C will have a detrimental effect on impact toughness (applicant’s Table 1) (Remarks p. 10 para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., fast cooling) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II). Evidence that the claimed cooling step is fast and that the cooling step of Komuro is slow and does not read on the claim 1 limitation of a cooling step of air cooling by natural cooling has not been presented. Further fast and slow are relative terms and it is unclear what differentiates fast cooling from slow cooling. Evidence to also substantiate the rebuttal of the prima facie obvious cooling temperature has not been presented. MPEP 2144.05(III).
For the above cited reasons the rejection of Komuro in view of Davis is maintained.
Yasumoto
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 12 paras. 3-4, filed December 11, 2025, with respect to Yasumoto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Yasumoto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Yasumoto’s Conditions 1 and 2 cool naturally in a magnetic field to (A1-50°C) and Condition 3 cools naturally to room temperature, but is not subject to a magnetic field during cooling (Table 1) (Remarks p. 12 para. 3) and neither Table 1 nor Figs. 5-6 of Yasumoto disclose the temperature range that the annealed steel is reduced to (Remarks p. 12 para. 4).
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 8, 10, and 13 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 8 lines 2-3 “to maintain the material properties of the steel” renders the claim indefinite. What are the material properties of the steel being maintained at? Are they meant to be maintained (i.e. remain the same) before and after cooling or quenching or does the cooling or quenching achieve properties that the stainless steel is maintained at? For the purpose of examination claim 8 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of cooling or quenching necessarily maintaining the material properties of the steel.
In claim 10 a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 10 line 3 recites the broad recitation “below 200°C”, and the claim 10 lines 3-4 also recite “suitably to room temperature” which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 10 is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination claim 10 will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of requiring annealing to a temperature below 200°C.
Claim 13 lines 3-4 “melting…for stainless steel production; atomizing stainless steel…” render the claim indefinite. How do the melting and atomizing relate to each other? Is the melt used for atomizing? Are they two unrelated process steps? What stainless steel is being atomized? For the purpose of examination claim 13 is interpreted as atomizing the melted 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” render the claim indefinite. If stainless steel is atomized into metallic powder, then how can the “the stainless steel” also be further processes as claimed? Is it stainless steel or the atomized stainless steel metallic powder that is further processed? Further, are all of the processes applicable to metallic powder? Many of the listed processes appear to be for a cast ingot, slab, or bloom. It appears that the atomized metallic powder can be further processed by near net shape powder metallurgy. For the purpose of examination claim 13 will be interpreted as the atomized stainless steel metallic powder being further processed as recited.
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 1-8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.).
Regarding claim 1, Komuro discloses a method of suppressing embrittlement ([0011], [0017]-[0018]) of stainless steel in a stainless steel production process ([0001], [0009]) comprising the steps of:
annealing (heating, aging) the stainless steel in an annealing (heating, aging) step ([0021]-[0023]);
cooling the steel in a cooling step or quenching the steel in a quenching step ([0015], [0030], [0043]); and
applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel ([0015], [0030], [0043])
wherein the magnetic field is applied to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching step ([0015], [0030], [0043]);
wherein the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature below 350°C (below 460°C), either by a quenching or a cooling step (cooling) ([0021], [0030], [0043];
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (cooling in the furnace reads on cooling as air cooling by natural cooling) ([0021], [0030], [0043]).
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).
Komuro is silent to manufacturing stainless steel in a conventional stainless steel manufacturing process.
Davis disclose a method of stainless steel production comprising manufacturing stainless steel in a conventional 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Komuro to manufacture the stainless steel that undergoes heating by aging 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 p. 120) followed by forming into a sheet, which is produced in nearly all types of stainless steel (Davis p. 38 Product Forms: Sheet).
Regarding claim 2, Komuro in view of Davis discloses the stainless steel production process comprises
melting at least one of a raw material or a scrap material for stainless steel production (Davis p. 120, p. 122 Processing);
casting stainless steel into ingots, slabs, blooms (Davis pp. 38-39 Product Forms: Sheet);
further processing the stainless steel 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 such that the material has a rolling direction or forged material) (Komuro [0013], [0015], [0017], [0020]-[0024]; Davis pp. 38-39 Product Forms: Sheet).
Regarding claim 3, Komuro in view of Davis discloses 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 p. 120, p. 124 Vacuum Oxygen Decarburization).
Regarding claim 4, Komuro in view of Davis discloses the stainless steel is tapped into a mould (crucible) (Davis pp. 124-125 Special Melting Processes, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Komuro in view of Davis discloses the stainless steel is tapped into a copper mould (crucible) (Davis pp. 124-125 Special Melting Processes, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Komuro in view of Davis discloses processing the stainless steel by continuously casting the stainless steel into slabs (Davis p. 38 Product Forms: Sheet).
Regarding claim 7, Komuro in view of Davis discloses the annealing step comprises raising the temperature of the stainless steel to a temperature in excess of 900°C (above 1095°C) for homogenization, softening, and dissolving secondary phases (Davis p. 303 Homogenization). 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, Komuro discloses the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel to maintain the material properties (spinodal decomposition, suppress growth of sigma phase) of the stainless steel ([0015], [0030], [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Komuro discloses the cooling or quenching step (cooling) ([0015], [0030], [0043]) reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature below 200°C, suitably to room temperature either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling in the furnace below 460°C reads on cooling to a temperature below 350°C) ([0021], [0030], [0043]);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (cooling in the furnace reads on cooling as air cooling by natural cooling) ([0021], [0030], [0043]).
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 11, Komura discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of >0.2 T (0.01 to 10 T) ([0013], [0029], [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).
Regarding claim 12, Komuro discloses the stainless steel is ferrite containing stainless steel or martensite containing stainless steel (duplex reads on ferrite containing) ([0010], [0015], [0021], [0036]).
Regarding claim 14, Komuro discloses the cooling or quenching step (cooling) ([0015], [0030], [0043]) reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature of 150 °C or below, either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling below 460°C) ([0021], [0030], [0043]);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (cooling in the furnace reads on cooling comprising air cooling by natural cooling) ([0021], [0030], [0043]).
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, Komuro discloses the cooling or quenching step (cooling) ([0015], [0030], [0043]) reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to room temperature, either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling below 460°C) ([0021], [0030], [0043]);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (cooling in the furnace reads on cooling comprising air cooling by natural cooling) ([0021], [0030], [0043]).
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 16, Komuro discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of >1 .0T (0.01 to 10 T) ([0013], [0029], [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).
Regarding claim 17, Komuro discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of 1.5T to 3.0T (0.01 to 10 T) ([0013], [0029], [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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2107/0327916).
Regarding claim 9, Komuro in view of Davis is silent to the annealing step being carried out in batch furnaces for batch annealing or 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 in the process of Komuro in view of Liu to batch anneal because it is easily applied to stainless steel manufacturing processes (Lee [0041]).
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reen (US 3,150,444) in view of Komuro (JP 2016-084493 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Reen discloses a method of a stainless steel production process (9:63 to 10:22) comprising the steps of:
manufacturing stainless steel in a conventional stainless steel manufacturing process (9:63 to 10:18;
annealing the stainless steel in an annealing step (10:19-21);
cooling the steel in a cooling step or quenching the stainless steel in a quenching step (cooling) (10:20-21);
wherein the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature below 350°C (room temperature), either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling) (10:20-21):
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (furnace cooled reads on air cooling by natural cooling) (10:20-21).
Reen is silent to suppressing embrittlement of stainless steel and applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel, wherein the magnetic field is applied to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching steps.
Komuro discloses suppressing embrittlement of stainless steel ([0001], [0009], [0011], [0017]-[0018]) comprising
applying a magnetic field to the stainless steel ([0015], [0030], [0043]),
wherein the magnetic field is applied to the stainless steel during the cooling or quenching steps ([0015], [0030], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Reen during cooling to apply a magnetic field to control the structure and improve mechanical properties (Komuro [0002], [0007], [0033]) by imparting directionality to the shape of the Fe-rich phase (Komuro [0006], [0015]), suppressing growth of the sigma phase (Komuro [0012], [0030], [0046]), accelerating spinodal decomposition (Komuro [0013]-[0014], [0032], [0047]), suppressing embrittlement (Komuro [0017]), and suppressing alpha phase decomposition (Komuro [0037], [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Reen discloses the stainless steel is tapped (compacted) into a mould (die) (9:75 to 10:3).
Regarding claim 7, Reen discloses the annealing step comprises raising the temperature of the stainless steel to a temperature (10:19-20) for homogenization, softening, and dissolving secondary phases (carbide structure taken into solution) (2:48-50).
Reen is silent to the example raising the temperature in excess of 900°C.
Reen discloses annealing between 1600 and 1650°F (870 to 900°C) (8:26-27, 9:37-38, 59-60, 10:19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Reen to annealing between 1600 and 1650°F (870 and 900°C) to form a structure of spheroidized carbides in a matrix of ferrite (1:17-20) with a fine, even carbide distribution (2:7-8, 16-17, 35-37). Annealing at 1650°F (900°C) is close to annealing in excess of 900°C such that prima facie one of ordinary skill in art would expect the prior art (Reen) to have the same properties as the claimed stainless steel. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are close. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Reen discloses the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel (10:20-21).
The limitation of the cooling or quenching step maintaining the material properties of the stainless steel has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed process. The prior art discloses a cooling process that renders that claimed obvious (Reen 10:20-21), such that the claimed maintaining property naturally flows.
Regarding claim 9, Reen discloses the annealing step is carried out in a batch furnace for batch annealing or by in-line annealing (annealed in a furnace reads on annealing in a batch furnace for batch annealing) (10:20-21).
Regarding claim 10, Reen discloses the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature below 200°C, suitably to room temperature (room temperature) either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling) (10:20-21);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (furnace cooled reads on air cooling by natural cooling) (10:20-21).
Regarding claim 11, Reen in view of Komuro discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of >0.2 T (0.01 to 10 T) (Komuro [0013], [0029], [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).
Regarding claim 12, Reen discloses the stainless steel is ferrite containing stainless steel or martensite containing stainless steel (ferrite) (1:17-20, 33-37).
Regarding claim 14, Reen discloses the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to a temperature of 150 °C or below (room temperature), either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling) (10:20-21);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (furnace cooled reads on air cooling by natural cooling) (10:20-21).
Regarding claim 15, Reen discloses the cooling or quenching step reduces the temperature of the stainless steel from the annealing temperature to room temperature, either by a quenching step or a cooling step (cooling) (10:20-21);
wherein:
the quenching step comprises at least one of batch quenching in water tanks or in-line spraying of the stainless steel; and
the cooling step comprises air cooling either by forced air or natural cooling (furnace cooled reads on air cooling by natural cooling) (10:20-21).
Regarding claim 16, Reen in view of Komuro discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of >1 .0T (0.01 to 10 T) (Komuro [0013], [0029], [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).
Regarding claim 17, Reen in view of Komuro discloses the magnetic field applied during quenching has a field strength in the range of 1.5T to 3.0T (0.01 to 10 T) (Komuro [0013], [0029], [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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reen (US 3,150,444) in view of Komuro (JP 2016-084493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warzel (Warzel. Manufacture of Stainless Steel Powders. ASM Handbook, Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy. P. Samal and J. Newkirk, editors. 2015.) as evidenced by SBS (42 mm Copper Tundish. Smith Brothers. SBS Online. Accessed February 21, 2026.).
Regarding claim 5, Reen discloses atomized stainless steel powder (9:63-75).
Warzel discloses atomization of stainless steel powder includes pouring molten stainless steel into a (copper) tundish (mold) (Warzel Water Atomization of Stainless Steel Powders, Fig. 2; SBS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the convention stainless steel manufacturing process of atomization of stainless steel powder by Reen to include tapping (pouring) into a copper mould (tundish) because this is a part of the atomization process for stainless steel (Warzel Water Atomization of Stainless Steel Powders, Fig. 2; SBS).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reen (US 3,150,444) in view of Komuro (JP 2016-084493 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warzel (Warzel. Manufacture of Stainless Steel Powders. ASM Handbook, Volume 7, Powder Metallurgy. P. Samal and J. Newkirk, editors. 2015.).
Regarding claim 13, Reen discloses the stainless steel production process (9:63 to 10:22) comprises
atomizing stainless steel into atomized metallic powder (9:63-75);
further processing the stainless steel 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, near net shape powder metallurgy and profiles (compacting and sintering reads on near net shape powder metallurgy) (10:1-22).
Reen is silent to the atomization process, including melting at least one of a raw material or a scrap material for stainless steel production.
Warzel discloses stainless steel powder atomization by melting at least one of a raw material or a scrap material for stainless steel production (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 Reen to melt raw material so that it can be poured into a tundish and emerge as a molten stream read 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]).
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-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