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 .
This Office action is in response to remarks filed on 03/24/2026. Refer to Response to Arguments section below. Claims 1-8 are pending. Previously filed drawing and specification objections are withdrawn.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2016/0091140), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 09/08/2023, and CN 208468043 (CN’043), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 04/12/2023 and translation provided by Examiner in Office action filed on 07/03/2025, and further in view of Tanizawa (WO 2009014107), as provided by the Examiner in previous Office action filed on 12/30/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Takagi (US 2016/00991140) discloses a steel tube (item 10; pp. [0033]; fig. 1) for hydrogen gas (pp. [0025]; fig. 1), comprising a finish-polished inner surface (pp. [0053]; following step 4 in which inner surface of tube is polished and completed; figs. 1 and 7a).
Though Takagi discloses an abrasive material is inserted into the storage tank to polish the inner surface (i.e. a polishing device), Takagi does not explicitly disclose the details of the polishing device inserted into the storage tank and wherein an inclination angle of a polishing trace present on the inner surface with respect to a circumferential direction of the steel tube for hydrogen gas is 0º to 30º.
However, CN 208468043 (CN’043) teaches a polishing device (item 15; figs. 1 and 3) for processing an inner surface of a steel pipe or tube (item 20; p. 1, ll. 2 and p. 2, ll. 13-15 of NPL translation), wherein the polishing device simultaneously rotates and moves linearly along the inner surface of the tube (p. 2, ll. 24-27). Though CN’043 is understood to inherently define an angled polishing trace relative to the circumferential direction of the steel pipe or tube (due to the linear and rotational movement of the polishing device 15; p. 2, ll. 24-27), CN’043 does not explicitly disclose an angle of the polishing trace on the inner surface of the steel pipe or tube relative to the circumferential direction of the tube.
However, Tanizawa (WO2009/014107) teaches an analogous device for polishing an inner surface of a tube (item 10; figs. 2-3) via a polishing device (item 21; fig. 3), wherein the polishing device simultaneously rotates and moves linearly along the inner surface of the tube (defined via arrows in view of fig. 3), and wherein the polishing device creates a polishing trace (defined as cross-hatch marks, figs. 4A-5B) angled relative to the circumferential direction (pp. [0028]; marks inclined in the axial direction by ± 30º or ± 45º, which is ± 70º or ± 45º in the circumferential direction of a circular tube) on the inner surface of the tube. Further, Tanizawa discloses the inclination angle of the polishing trace is not limited to these angles (pp. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steel tube, as disclosed in Takagi and CN’043, to include a polishing trace on the inner surface, as taught in Tanizawa, and further, to have optimized Tanizawa’s polishing trace inclination angle relative to the circumferential direction to be within 0º to 30º, as suggested by Tanizawa, in order to obtain extremely good and ideal surface properties for the tube (pp. [0006-0008], [0028], and [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Takagi discloses a method for manufacturing a steel pipe or tube for hydrogen gas (pp. [0051-0061]; figs. 7), comprising polishing an inner surface of a steel tube (pp. [0053]; step four polishing step in which inner surface of tube is polished; fig. 7a) as a polishing object by moving the steel pipe or tube relative to a polishing tool while the polishing tool is in contact with the inner surface of the steel tube (pp. [0053]; polishing tool and object include bar-shaped or band-shaped nonwoven abrasive material is used and inserted through an opening of the hydrogen tube to be brought into contact with the inner surface; polishing is performed while rotating the steel hydrogen tube about the central axis of the tube, i.e. relative to the polishing tool).
Though Takagi discloses a polishing is inserted into the storage tank to polish the inner surface (i.e. a polishing device), Takagi does not explicitly disclose the details of the polishing tool inserted into the storage tank and wherein an inclination angle of a polishing trace is present on the inner surface, and wherein the inclination angle with respect to a circumferential direction of the steel tube for hydrogen gas is 0º to 30º.
However, CN 208468043 (CN’043) teaches a polishing device (item 15; figs. 1 and 3) for processing an inner surface of a steel pipe or tube (item 20; p. 1, ll. 2 and p. 2, ll. 13-15 of NPL translation), wherein the polishing device simultaneously rotates and moves linearly along the inner surface of the tube (p. 2, ll. 24-27). Though CN’043 is understood to inherently define an angled polishing trace relative to the circumferential direction of the steel pipe or tube (due to the linear and rotational movement of the polishing device 15, i.e. spiral polishing trace; p. 2, ll. 24-27), CN’043 does not explicitly disclose an angle of the polishing trace on the inner surface of the steel pipe or tube relative to the circumferential direction of the tube.
However, Tanizawa (WO2009/014107) teaches an analogous device for polishing an inner surface of a tube (item 10; figs. 2-3) via a polishing device (item 21; fig. 3), wherein the polishing device simultaneously rotates and moves linearly along the inner surface of the tube (defined via arrows in view of fig. 3), and wherein the polishing device creates a polishing trace (defined as cross-hatch marks, figs. 4A-5B) angled relative to the circumferential direction (pp. [0028]; marks inclined in the axial direction by ± 30º or ± 45º, which is ± 70º or ± 45º in the circumferential direction of a circular tube) on the inner surface of the tube. Further, Tanizawa discloses the inclination angle of the polishing trace is not limited to these angles (pp. [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the steel tube, as disclosed in Takagi and CN’043, to include a polishing trace on the inner surface, as taught in Tanizawa, and further, to have optimized Tanizawa’s polishing trace inclination angle relative to the circumferential direction to be within 0º to 30º, as suggested by Tanizawa, in order to obtain extremely good and ideal surface properties for the tube (pp. [0006-0008], [0028], and [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, Takagi as modified discloses a pressure vessel (not explicitly shown; item 10 defined as pressure vessel when items 20, 21 are attached and mounted to close items 10c, 10d; fig. 1) for hydrogen gas using the steel tube for hydrogen gas as claimed in 1.
Regarding claim 5, Takagi as modified discloses a method for manufacturing a pressure vessel for hydrogen gas (pp. [0025], [0051-0061]; figs. 1 and 7), comprising working the steel tube for hydrogen as claimed in 1 into the pressure vessel for hydrogen gas (according to Dictionary.com, “working” is defined as functioning or able to function; therefore, once the hydrogen tank 10 is formed, the valves 20, 21 are attached and mounted to close openings 10c, 10d to function the hydrogen gas tank within the pressure vessel structure 1).
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 2016/0091140), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 09/08/2023, and CN 208468043 (CN’043), as provided by applicant in IDS filed on 04/12/2023 and translation provided by Examiner in previous Office action filed on 07/03/2025, Tanizawa (WO 2009014107), as provided by the Examiner, and further in view of Fritzsche (EP3096067), as provided by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 2, Takagi as modified discloses the steel tube for hydrogen gas as claimed in 1, but does not explicitly disclose a maximum height roughness Rz of the inner surface is more than 20µm. Takagi does disclose a coating step (step 5; pp. [0054]), wherein a coating is applied to the inner surface lining.
Fritzsche teaches a method and apparatus for the surface treatment of a gas cylinder made of sheet steel (pp. [0001] and [0016] in NPL), wherein the surface treatment includes a first step of roughening the surface, prior to a second step of coating the surface (pp. [0016]), and a maximum height roughness Rz of the surface treatment, i.e. inner surface, is more than 20 µm (pp. [0016]; a minimum surface roughness is 30 µm, preferably 40 µm; therefore, a maximum surface roughness is greater than 30 µm, preferably 40 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner surface of the steel tube, as disclosed in Takagi, to include a roughening step prior to the coating step (corresponding to step 5 in Takagi) to include a maximum height roughness of more than 20 µm, as disclosed in Fritzsche, in order to enable a durable coating during the coating step (pp. [0016] and [0019] in Fritzsche).
Regarding claim 6, Takagi as modified discloses a pressure vessel (not explicitly shown; item 10 defined as pressure vessel when items 20, 21 are attached and mounted to close items 10c, 10d; fig. 1) for hydrogen gas as claimed in 2.
Regarding claim 7, Takagi as modified discloses a method for manufacturing a pressure for hydrogen gas (pp. [0025], [0051-0061]; figs. 1 and 7), comprising working the steel tube for hydrogen as claimed in claim 2 into the pressure vessel for hydrogen gas (according to Dictionary.com, “working” is defined as functioning or able to function; therefore, once the hydrogen tank 10 is formed, the valves 20, 21 are attached and mounted to close openings 10c, 10d to function the hydrogen gas tank within the pressure vessel structure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi as modified discloses the steel tube for hydrogen gas as claimed in claim 2, wherein the maximum height roughness Rz of the inner surface is 30 µm or more (Fritzsche; pp. [0016] and [0019], minimum height roughness of 30 µm, preferably 40 µm; therefore, the maximum height roughness is greater than the minimum, i.e. at least 30.01 µm and above, which is more than 30 µm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Tanizawa is non-analogous art (p. 7-8 of Remarks), it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In the case of the apparatus claim, the claim is directed toward a steel pipe or tube for hydrogen gas comprising a polished inner surface wherein a polishing trace (i.e. notch-like defect/crack) is present on the inner surface. The teaching reference, Tanizawa, lends itself to the problem at hand since the invention is concerned with polishing an interior of pipe with a polishing tool, corresponding to the abrasive polishing of the inner surface in Takagi (the primary reference), wherein cross-hatches measured between 0 degrees to 30 degrees with respect to the circumferential direction are configured on the interior of the pipe, corresponding to the polishing traces/marks/cross-hatches formed on the interior of the pipe in CN’043 (teaching reference). Further, in the case of the method claim, Tanizawa is analogous as the invention relates to honing an interior surface of a cylinder pipe, thereby analogous to the method of manufacturing a steel pipe including polishing an inner surface.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper (see MPEP 2145). The primary reference, Takagi, discloses a steel pipe or tube for hydrogen gas and a method thereof, wherein the method comprises a polishing step of the inner surface. Takagi is silent on the type of polishing tool used. CN’208468043 (CN’043) is used as a first teaching reference to teach a polishing device polishing an interior surface of a steel pipe or tube, wherein the polishing device inherently defines an angled polishing trace on the interior surface due to the linear and rotational movement of the polishing device (p. 2, ll. 24-27 in NPL of CN’043 and also, stated by applicant in p. 11 of Remarks filed on 09/24/2025). CN’043 is silent on the angles relative to a circumferential direction of the polishing traces from the polishing device. However, a secondary teaching reference, Tanizawa, lends itself to the problem at hand since the invention is directed towards a polishing of an inner surface of a cylinder tube, wherein cross-hatch/marks/traces are defined on the interior of the pipe in a range of angles. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the polishing trace inclination angle, created by the teachings of CN’043, to be within 0 to 30 degrees since Tanizawa teaches a range of angles to maximize the ideal surface properties on the inner surface of the tube.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention (p. 7 of Remarks), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., controlling the polishing traces to this specific angular range to suppress the occurrence of cracks under high-pressure hydrogen gas environments, thereby drastically improving the hydrogen embrittlement resistance) 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. In addition, the Examiner notes if the applicant intends for this structure to be recited in the claim, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, in response to applicant’s argument for Tanizawa lack of reasonable expectation of success, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues “none of the cited references, including Tanizawa, recognize that the inclination angle of the polishing is a result-effective variable that impacts fatigue characteristics by a hydrogen environment” (p. 8 of Remarks). The Examiner notes one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. For clarification, the primary reference, Takagi, which discusses a polishing step of the inner surface, is silent on type of polishing tool used and modified to include a polishing device from a first teaching reference, CN 208468043 (CN’043), which inherently defines an angled polishing trace due to the linear and rotational movement of the polishing device (p. 2, ll. 24-27 in NPL of CN’043 and also, stated by applicant in p. 11 of Remarks filed on 09/24/2025). Tanizawa lends itself to the problem at hand since the invention is directed towards a polishing of an inner surface of a cylinder tube and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the polishing trace inclination angle, created by the teachings of CN’043, to be within 0 to 30 degrees since it has been held that in the case where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, Tanizawa, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Also, the range of angles taught by Tanizawa shows reasonable expectations of success for maximizing the ideal surface properties on the inner surface of the tube.
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument of Takagi (the primary reference) teaching away from the claimed invention since “this polishing is performed to prevent the growth of cracks originating from ‘minute unevenness’ on the inner surface” and “it is a matter of technical common sense…that electrolytic polishing selectively discloses the convex portions (burrs) of a metal surface to eliminate unevenness, resulting in a smooth, glossy finish,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Though the primary reference, Takagi, states “growth of crack, where fine unevenness of the inner surface of the inner line serves as a starting point, can be prevented” (pp. [0053]), merely expressing a general preference for an alternative invention does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the inner layer having a polishing trace between 0 and 30 degrees from the polishing step and therefore, does not teach away.
To further support the argument, applicant filed a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 on 03/24/2026 to overcome the teachings of Takagi (the primary reference). The declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 3 in view of Takagi (the primary reference). Though the primary reference, Takagi, discloses electrolytic polishing for the polishing step and states “growth of crack, where fine unevenness of the inner surface of the inner line serves as a starting point, can be prevented” (pp. [0053]), the declaration needs to match the teachings of the reference. Takagi does not disclose the inner surface resulting in a “smooth, glossy finish” and that cracks are completely removed from the inner surface. Instead, Takagi discloses cracks can be prevented. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must align with the disclosure of the reference and not negate the teachings from the disclosure.
Lastly, in regard to the arguments in view of claim 2, the applicant argues, “the ‘coating step’ in Takagi is explicitly disclosed on the ‘outer circumference surface’ of the liner layer…Takagi does not teach or suggest applying any coating or paint to the inner surface of the steel pipe” and therefore, there is “no motivation to apply Fritzsche’s teaching of roughening an inner surface for paint adhesion to the inner surface” (p. 10 of Remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As defined by Merriam-Webster, “surface” is defined as an external part or layer; therefore, the inner surface (reference number 12 in Takagi) has a polishing step and coating step performed on the surface. If applicant’s intent was for the roughness to be defined on an “innermost” surface of the interior of the pipe or tube, then that structure is not recited. Further, the applicant argues, “applying a large roughness to the inner surface directly contradicts the core teaching of Takagi, which utilizes electrolytic polishing to eliminate minute unevenness on the inner surface” (p. 10 of Remarks). The Examiner refers to their similar response above in that though Takagi states “growth of crack, where fine unevenness of the inner surface of the inner line serves as a starting point, can be prevented” (pp. [0053]), merely expressing a general preference for an alternative invention does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the inner surface having a maximum roughness.
Therefore, the rejections remain in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoglund (US 2021/0154793) discloses a steel pipe or tube including a polishing device forming a cross-hatch pattern on the inner surface of the tube.
Kuromasa (US 2022/0025829) discloses a cylinder tube and manufacturing method, wherein a honing step is included and the honing step forms a grooved pattern on the innermost periphery surface.
Nagel (US Patent No. 6,012,973) discloses a honing tool moving through an interior of a pipe in a helical motion, i.e. rotational and axial ,movement, wherein the honing tool creates a honing mark pattern that run between a specified range to an axial direction of the pipe.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights