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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered.
The applicant argues that Takagi does not have a structure composed of a mixed structure of bainite and ferrite, which is indeed true, as Takagi discloses a mostly martensite-bainite structure with allowable ferrite impurities. However, upon further search and consideration a new ground of rejection has been made.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steel Express’s webpage “AISI 1524 Steel”, hereafter known as AISI 1524, in view of Masuda (US 20160369759 A1), hereafter known as Masuda, in view of ArcelorMittal’s webpage “Hot-rolled ferrite-bainite steels”, hereafter known as ArcelorMittal, in view of Takagi (US 20180044748 A1), hereafter known as Takagi.
Regarding claim 1, AISI 1524 discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping (not disclosed to be a pipe), having a chemical composition consisting of, by mass%:
C: 0.17 to 0.27%; (Chemical composition chart, C: 0.15 to 0.25%, AISI 1524)
Si: 0.05 to 0.40%; (Chemical composition chart, Si: 0.1 to 0.35%, AISI 1524)
Mn: 0.30 to 2.00%; (Chemical composition chart, Mn: 1.30 to 1.7%, AISI 1524)
P: 0.035% or less; (Chemical composition chart, P: 0.06% max, AISI 1524)
S: 0.035% or less; (Chemical composition chart, S: 0.06% max, AISI 1524)
Cu: 0 to 0.50%; (AISI 1524 does not contain Cu)
Mo: 0 to 1.0%; (Chemical composition chart, AISI 1524 does not contain Mo)
V: 0 to 0.15%; (AISI 1524 does not contain V) and a balance being Fe and impurities (product description, AISI 1524 is a carbon manganese steel, thus the remaining composition is implied to be Fe),
(For the elements above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
wherein the steel pipe has a metallographic structure composed of a mixed structure of bainite and ferrite in a middle part of a thickness of the steel pipe (not disclosed),
a tensile strength in a hydrogen atmosphere of 500 MPa or more and 900 MPa or less (AISI 1524 steel has a tensile strength of 590-660 MPa (cited from “SAE-AISI 1524 (formerly 1024, G15240) Carbon Steel”), and as evidenced by and according to “Technical Reference on Hydrogen Compatibility of Materials Plain Carbon Ferritic Steels: C-Mn Alloys (code 1100)”, section 3.1.1, page 1100-3, hydrogen gas does not reduce ultimate tensile strength. Thus the tensile strength of AISI 1524 steel remains 590-660 MPa in a hydrogen atmosphere).
a hardness in the middle part of the thickness of the steel pipe of 160 HV1 or more and 280 HV1 or less (AISI 1524 steel has Brinell hardness of 170-190 (cited from “SAE-AISI 1524 (formerly 1024, G15240) Carbon Steel”), which translates to 175-186 Vickers hardness, or HV1),
an inner diameter d of 3 mm or more (not disclosed), an outer diameter D of 12 mm or less (not disclosed), and the thickness of 1 mm or more (not disclosed), a ratio of the outer diameter to the inner diameter satisfies: D/d > 2.0, (not disclosed), and
a defect on an inner surface of the steel pipe has a depth of 200 µm or less at a maximum (not disclosed).
AISI 1524 does not disclose the steel to be in the shape of a pipe with the claimed dimensions. However, Masuda discloses a steel pipe with an inner diameter d of 3 mm or more (paragraph 0118, Masuda), an outer diameter D of 12 mm or less (paragraph 0118, outer diameter is desirably 10 mm or less, Masuda), and the thickness of 1 mm or more (paragraph 0118, wall thickness is desirably 2 mm or more, Masuda), a ratio of the outer diameter to the inner diameter satisfies: D/d > 2.0, (Paragraph 0118, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and outer diameter of 10 mm, the outer to inner diameter ratio 10/3=3.33, Masuda). Masuda describes a steel pipe, a field related to AISI 1524 and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Masuda into AISI 1524 and form the AISI 1524 steel into a pipe with the dimensions described in Masuda. Forming steel into pipe is very well known in the art, and dimensions of the pipe would allow AISI 1524 steel to be used in other applications, such as fuel lines for vehicles.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the size and shape of AISI 1524 steel to whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in size or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47, In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
AISI 1524 in view of Masuda does not disclose the metallographic structure composed of a mixed structure of bainite and ferrite in a middle part of a thickness of the steel pipe. However, ArcelorMittal teaches a steel of the claimed chemical composition range that has a microstructure composed of a mixed structure of bainite and ferrite (Chemical Composition chart of ArcelorMittal, the steel has overlapping chemical composition ranges with the claimed invention, product image, the microstructure is a mixture of ferrite and bainite, ArcelorMittal). ArcelorMittal is a product page for a silicon manganese steel used in vehicles, a field closely related to AISI 1524, Masuda, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ArcelorMittal into AISI 1524 in view of Masuda and make the microstructure of the pipe to be a mixture of ferrite and bainite. The ferritic-bainitic microstructure provides high tensile strength and excellent formability and stretchability (description, ArcelorMittal), improving the performance and manufacturability of the pipe. After the modification, the entire pipe, including the middle of the thickness, would be a mixture of ferrite and bainite.
AISI 1524 in view of Masuda and ArcelorMittal does not disclose the inner surface defects of the steel pipe. However, Iso 8535-1 teaches pipes with inner surface imperfections of 0.01mm (100 µm) or less (table 2, code O, Iso 8535-1). Iso 8535-1 is an international standard for steel high pressure fuel pipes, a field related to AISI 1524, Masuda, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Iso 8535-1 into AISI 1524 in view of Masuda and ArcelorMittal and produce the pipes to meet the inner surface defect requirements of Iso 8535-1. Manufacturing a pipe to a known standard is very common in the art and would allow the pipe to be used in products or systems that are required to meet the standard.
AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, and Iso 8535-1 does not disclose using the steel pip for high pressure hydrogen transport. However, Takagi discloses using a steel pipe for transportation high pressure hydrogen (paragraphs 0001 and 0002, Takagi). Takagi describes a steel fuel pipe for vehicles, a field closely related to AISI 1524, Masuda, ArcelorMittal, and Iso 8535-1. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Takagi into AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, and Iso 8535-1 and use the pipe to transport high pressure hydrogen, as doing so would increase the range of uses of the pipe.
Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 2, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, the steel pipe containing one or more of, by mass%:
Cr: 0 to 1.0%; (Chemical composition chart, Cr: 0.25% max, AISI 1524)
Ni: 0 to 0.50%; (Chemical composition chart, Ni: 0.4% max, AISI 1524)
instead of part of Fe.
(For the elements above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 3, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, wherein the chemical composition of the steel pipe contains one or more selected from, by mass%:
Cr: 0.2 to 1.0%; (Chemical composition chart, Cr: 0.25% max, AISI 1524)
(For the elements above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 4, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses high pressure hydrogen piping using the steel pipe according to claim 1, as a material (paragraph 0001 and 0002, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen). Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 5, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 2, wherein the chemical composition of the steel pipe contains one or more selected from, by mass%:
Cr: 0.2 to 1.0%; (Chemical composition chart, Cr: 0.25% max, AISI 1524)
Ni: 0.03 to 0.50%; (Chemical composition chart, Ni: 0.4% max, AISI 1524)
(For the elements above, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 6-8, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses high pressure hydrogen piping using the steel pipe according to claim 2 for claim 6, claim 3 for claim 7, and claim 5 for claim 8, as a material (paragraph 0001 and 0002, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen). Additionally for claims 6-8, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 9, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the steel pipe is for use as high pressure hydrogen piping in a fuel cell vehicle. However, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 10, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, wherein the metallographic structure in the middle part of the thickness of the steel pipe is composed of bainite and ferrite without martensite (product image, the microstructure is a mixture of ferrite and bainite, with no martensite, ArcelorMittal).
Regarding claim 11, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, wherein a fatigue limit of the steel pipe in hydrogen gas is equal to or greater than a fatigue limit of the steel pipe in air (according to “A Statistical Review of Hydrogen Effects on the Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of Steel”, hydrogen does not have a significant effect on the endurance limit, also known as the fatigue limit, of steel, thus the fatigue limit of the steel pipe should be equal whether it was in hydrogen or in air).
Regarding claim 12, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the outer diameter to the inner diameter satisfies: D/d> 2.4 (Paragraph 0118, with an inner diameter of 3 mm and outer diameter of 10 mm, the outer to inner diameter ratio 10/3=3.33, Masuda).
Regarding claim 13, AISI 1524 in view of Masuda, ArcelorMittal, Iso 8535-1, and Takagi discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, wherein the tensile strength in the hydrogen atmosphere is 600 MPa or more and 800 MPa or less (AISI 1524 steel has a tensile strength of 590-660 MPa (cited from “SAE-AISI 1524 (formerly 1024, G15240) Carbon Steel”), and as evidenced by and according to “Technical Reference on Hydrogen Compatibility of Materials Plain Carbon Ferritic Steels: C-Mn Alloys (code 1100)”, section 3.1.1, page 1100-3, hydrogen gas does not reduce ultimate tensile strength. Thus the tensile strength of AISI 1524 steel remains 590-660 MPa in a hydrogen atmosphere. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kondo (US 20030094221 A1) discloses a steel pipe with ferrite-bainite microstructure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights