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 but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, regarding the argument that Masuda teaches away from the inclusion of ferrite, Masuda states “the presence of a ferrite-pearlite microstructure in the metal micro-structure causes a breakage in a ferritic phase having a low hardness locally serving as an originating point even when a breakage at the originating point of inclusions is eliminated, and thus an expected critical internal pressure based on a macroscopic hardness and a tensile strength cannot be obtained. In addition, with a metal micro-structure containing no tempered martensite or a ferrite-pearlite micro-structure, it is difficult to secure a tensile strength of 800 MPa or higher, in particular a tensile strength of 900 MPa or higher.” Thus, Masuda teaches away from the inclusion of a ferrite-pearlite microstructure, or in other words, the combination of ferrite and pearlite, as well as teaches away from having no tempered martensite, but Masuda does not teach away from the inclusion of ferrite by itself.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi (US 20180044748 A1), hereafter known as Takagi, in view of Masuda (US 20160369759 A1), hereafter known as Masuda, in view of ISO 8535-1, 2016 edition, hereafter known as ISO 8535-1.
Regarding claim 1, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping (paragraphs 0001 and 0002, Takagi), having a chemical composition consisting of, by mass%:
C: 0.17 to 0.27%; (para 0022, C: 0.10 to 0.6%, Takagi)
Si: 0.05 to 0.40%; (para 0022, Si: 0.01 to 2.0%, Takagi)
Mn: 0.30 to 2.00%; (para 0022, Mn: 0.10 to 5.0%, Takagi)
P: 0.035% or less; (para 0022, P: 0.0005% to 0.06%, Takagi)
S: 0.035% or less; (para 0022, S: 0.0001% to 0.01%, Takagi)
Cu: 0 to 0.50%; (not disclosed)
Mo: 0 to 1.0%; (not disclosed)
V: 0 to 0.15%; (not disclosed) and a balance being Fe and impurities (para 0022, Takagi),
(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 (paragraphs 0041 and 0042, the pipe is allowed to have up to 10% of ferrite mixed into the microstructure, and 5% is preferred, as well as 90% of martensite and lower bainite, with 95% preferred, thus a mixture of bainite and ferrite, Takagi).
a tensile strength in a hydrogen atmosphere of 500 MPa or more and 900 MPa or less (paragraph 0115, Takagi, tensile strength under normal atmosphere is 800 MPa or more, 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 the steel of Takagi remains 800 MPa or more. 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)).
a hardness in the middle part of the thickness of the steel pipe of 160 HV1 or more and 280 HV1 or less (not disclosed),
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).
Takagi does not disclose the composition of Cu, Mo, or V, nor the dimensions of the pipe. However, Masuda teaches a steel with:
Cu: 0 to 0.50%; (abstract, Cu: 0 to 0.50%, Masuda)
Mo: 0 to 1.0%; (abstract, Mo: 0 to 1.0%; Masuda)
V: 0 to 0.15%; (abstract, V: 0 to 0.15%, Masuda),
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 wall thickness of 2 mm, the outer diameter is 7mm, making the outer to inner wall diameter ratio 7/3=2.33, Masuda).
Masuda describes a steel fuel pipe for a vehicle, a field closely related to Takagi 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 Takagi and include the compositions of Cu, Mo, and V of Masuda into Takagi, as well as construct the pipe of Takagi in the dimensions of the pipe of Masuda. The additional copper and molybdenum would increase the hardenability of the steel but not be enough to increase the cost of the steel (paragraphs 0090 and 0092, Masuda), the vanadium would increase resistance to temper softening but not be enough to decrease toughness (paragraph 0096, Masuda), and the dimensions of the pipe would allow the steel of Takagi 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 the pipe of Takagi 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).
Takagi in view of Masuda does not disclose the hardness or inner surface defects of the steel pipe. However, Iso 8535-1 teaches pipes with maximum hardness of 280 (table 4, code 4, Iso 8535-1), 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 high pressure fuel pipes, a field related to Takagi, 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 Takagi in view of Masuda and produce the pipes of Takagi in view of Masuda to meet the hardness and inner surface defects of Iso 8535-1. Manufacturing a pipe to a known standard is very common in the art and would allow the pipe of Masuda to be used in products or systems that are required to meet the standard.
Regarding claim 2, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 discloses the steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen piping according to claim 1, the steel pipe containing one or more of, by mass%:
Ti: 0.005 to 0.015%; (abstract, Ti: 0.005 to 0.015%, Masuda)
Nb: 0.015 to 0.045%; (abstract, Nb: 0.015 to 0.045%, Masuda)
Cr: 0 to 1.0%; (paragraph 0064, Cr: 0.005% to 3.0%, Takagi)
Ni: 0 to 0.50%; (paragraph 0067, Ni: 0.005% to 3%, Takagi)
Al: 0.005 to 0.060%; (paragraph 0059, Al: 0.01 to 0.06%, Takagi)
O: 0.0040% or less; (abstract, O: 0.0040% or less, Masuda)
Ca: 0.0010% or less; (abstract, Ca: 0.0010% or less, Masuda)
N: 0.0020 to 0.0080%, (paragraph 0057, N: 0.0001 to 0.018%, Takagi) 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, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 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%; (paragraph 0064, Cr: 0.005 to 3.0%, Takagi. )
Mo: 0.03 to 1.0%; (paragraph 0062, Mo: 0.005% to 2.0%; Takagi)
Cu: 0.03 to 0.50%; (abstract, Cu: 0 to 0.50%, Masuda)
Ni: 0.03 to 0.50%; (paragraph 0067, Ni: 0.005% to 3%, Takagi)
V: 0.06 to 0.10%. (abstract, V: 0 to 0.15%, Masuda)
(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, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 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).
Regarding claim 5, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 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%; (paragraph 0064, Cr: 0.005 to 3.0%, Takagi. )
Mo: 0.03 to 1.0%; (paragraph 0062, Mo: 0.005% to 2.0%; Takagi)
Cu: 0.03 to 0.50%; (abstract, Cu: 0 to 0.50%, Masuda)
Ni: 0.03 to 0.50%; (paragraph 0067, Ni: 0.005% to 3%, Takagi)
V: 0.06 to 0.10%. (abstract, V: 0 to 0.15%, Masuda)
(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 6, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 discloses high pressure hydrogen piping using the steel pipe according to claim 2, as a material (paragraph 0001 and 0002, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen).
Regarding claim 7, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 discloses high pressure hydrogen piping using the steel pipe according to claim 3, as a material (paragraph 0001 and 0002, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen).
Regarding claim 8, Takagi in view of Masuda and Iso 8535-1 discloses high pressure hydrogen piping using the steel pipe according to claim 5, as a material (paragraph 0001 and 0002, Takagi discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukai (US 9464337 B2) discloses a steel with excellent hydrogen embrittlement resistance with mixture of ferrite and bainite.
Weiping (EP 2209926 B) discloses a steel with a mixture of ferrite and bainite.
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 8:00 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