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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 5504778 to Fukuda et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Fukuda discloses a stainless steel foil for a catalyst support of an exhaust gas purifier comprising the following composition which overlaps the instantly claimed composition as well as examples A-K and 1-16 (Fukuda A shown for reference) which lie within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed wt%
Fukuda wt%
Fukuda A
Overlaps/Lies within?
C
0-0.020
0-0.05
0.008
Yes/Yes
Si
0-1.0
0-2.0
0.15
Yes/Yes
Mn
0-1.0
0-1.0
0.13
Yes/Yes
P
0-0.040
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
S
0-0.004
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Cr
16.0-30.0
13.0-30.0
20.2
Yes/Yes
Al
2.00-6.50
3.0-10.0
5.8
Yes/Yes
N
0-0.020
≤impurity
0.006
Yes/Yes
Ni
0-0.50
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Ti
0-0.30
0-0.02
0.004
Yes/Yes
Zr
0-0.20
0.005-0.20
0.032
Yes/Yes
Hf
0-0.20
Optionally 0.01-0.20
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
REM
0-0.20
0.03-0.20
La: 0.075
Yes/Yes
Cu
0-0.10
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Nb
0-0.30
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
V
0-0.30
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Ca
0-0.0100
Optionally 0.0010-0.0300
0.0018
Yes/Yes
Mg
0-0.0100
Optionally 0.0015-0.0300
0.0022
Yes/Yes
B
0-0.0050
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Mo+W
0-6.0
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes/Yes
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
Yes/Yes
The steels of Fukuda have a surface roughness Ra of 0.5-1.5 µm, which lies within the claimed range of an Sa of 0.50-3.00 µm.
The steels of Fukuda were melted by vacuum melting to form a steel ingot, then heated to 1200°C, hot-rolled in a temperature range of 900 to 1200°C to a plate thickness of 4 mm. The hot-rolled sheet, was annealed at 1000°C in the atmosphere, subjected to surface grinding and cold rolling to obtain a cold-rolled sheet having a thickness of 1 mm. This cold-rolled sheet was subjected to annealing at 950°C for 1 minute in air, surface grinding, and cold rolling multiple times. After slitting to a width of 70 mm, an oxide film containing Al203 was formed under the conditions shown in Table 2. The surface roughness Ra and the oxide of film foils shown in Table 2 were prepared. At this time, Ra of the foil was adjusted by changing the surface roughness of the upper and lower work rolls in the final cold rolling. Ra of the produced foil was measured in a direction perpendicular to the rolling direction. Next, a portion of each foil produced was corrugated by passing a tension of 5 kgf/mm2 (1 kgf/mm2 = 9.8 MPa) between a pair of rolls that were geared into a wave shape. Then, spot welding the flat foil and the end of the corrugated foil and a catalytic converter having a honeycomb structure was produced.
(Fukuda, claims 1-4, para [0001-0040], Tables 1-3, examples A-K and 1-16)
Regarding the limitations “a parameter Sa defined in ISO 25178 of 0.50 µm to 3.00 µm; and a parameter Str defined in ISO 25178 of 0.20 to 1.00,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the stainless steel foil of Fukuda would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed stainless steel foil because the steel of Fukuda has the same or substantially the same composition, structure, surface roughness and method of manufacturing. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 4 and 6-8, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the stainless steel foil of Fukuda would be expected to have the same or similar grain size as the instantly claimed stainless steel foil because the steel of Fukuda has the same or substantially the same composition, structure, surface roughness and method of manufacturing. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738