TNotice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant has elected Invention | with species 1 (claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15) for the further prosecution as filed in the response dated 1/2/2026. Claims 9-10 and 13-14 have been withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15 remain for Examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Re” in the instant claims should be specific as “Re: rare earth elements”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al (US-PG-pub 2019/0345592 A1, listed in IDS filed on 2/28/2025, updated as US 11,136,655 B2, thereafter PG’592) in view of Tatsumori et al (JP S5943851 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’851).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 11-12, PG’592 teaches a heat-resistant austenite alloy and a reaction tube having excellent oxidation resistance, excellent mechanical properties such as tensile ductility, and weldability (Abstract, par.[0003], and claims of PG’592) manufactured by centrifugally casting (par.[0035] of PG’592). Which reads on the austenitic alloy or austenitic centrifugal casting pipe as claimed in the instant claims. The comparison between the alloy composition ranges disclosed PG’592 (claims and par.[0010]-[0033], [0060]-[0090] of PG’592) and those disclosed in the instant claims are listed in the following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed in PG’592 overlap the claimed ranges as recited in the instant claims, which creates prima facie case of obviousness. MEPE 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the alloy composition ranges including C, Si, Mn, Cr, Ni, Al, Ti, Nb, Mo, W, Re, and Fe and impurities from the disclosure of PG’592 since PG’592 teaches the same austenitic alloy or austenitic centrifugal casting pipe as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. It is noted that PG’592 does not specify the amount ranges of Ta, Zr, N (cl.1-2), and optional elements (cl.3-4). JP’851 teaches a high-strength cast alloy consisting of prescribed percentages of C, Cr, Ni, W, Mo, Ti and Al and the balance Fe with inevitable impurities (Abstract of JP’851). All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’851 (Abstract and claims of JP’851) overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. JP’851 provides alloy composition with adjustable alloy composition ranges (claims and form (a) on page 298 to (l) on page 300 of JP’851) and specify to add proper amount of Zr, Ta, N, and B in order to improve the alloy properties, which overlaps the claimed ranges of Ta, Zr, N (cl.1-2), and optional elements (including B cl.3-4). MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add proper amount of Zr, Ta, N, and B as claimed form the disclosure of JP’851 in the alloy of PG’592 since both PG’592 and JP’851 teach the same austenitic casting alloy throughout whole disclosing range and JP’851 specify to add proper amount of Zr, Ta, N, and B in order to improve the alloy properties (claims and form (a) on page 298 to (l) on page 300 of JP’851).
Regarding claim 6, the claimed properties are recognized as alloy features fully depended on alloy composition and microstructures. Since PG’592 in view of JP’851 teaches the similar alloy compositions with the same austenitic microstructure manufactured by the same centrifugally casting process for the same pipe application, the claimed properties would be highly expected form the alloy of PG’592 in view of JP’851. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Element
From instant Claims 1-2, (wt.%)
From PG’952 (wt.%)
Overlapping range
(wt.%)
C
0.3-0.7 (cl.1)
0.4-0.65 (cl.2)
0.35-0.7
0.35-0.7 (cl.1)
0.4-0.65 (cl.2)
Mn
0-0.5 (cl.1)
0-0.4 (cl.2)
0-2
0-0.5 (cl.1)
0-0.4 (cl.2)
Si
0-0.5 (cl.1)
0-0.4 (cl.2)
0-1.5
0-0.5 (cl.1)
0-0.4 (cl.2)
Cr
20-26 (cl.1)
22-40
20-26 (cl.1)
Ni
40-50 (cl.1)
25-48.3
40-48.3 (cl.1)
Al
3.5-5 (cl.1)
1.5-4.5
3.5-4.5 (cl.1)
Ti
0.01-0.3 (cl.1)
0.04-0.3 (cl.2)
0.01-0.6
0.01-0.3 (cl.1)
0.04-0.3 (cl.2)
Zr
0.01-0.3 (cl.1)
--
0.001-0.2 (JP’851)
--
0.01-0.2 (JP’851)
Nb
0.1-1 (cl.1)
0.01-2.0
0.1-1 (cl.1)
Ta
0.01-2 (cl.1)
0.07-2 (cl.2)
--
0.01-1.5 (JP’851)
--
(JP’851)
0.01-1.5 (cl.1)
0.07-1.5 (cl.2)
Mo
0.01-1 (cl.1)
0.2-1 (cl.2)
≤ 0.5
0.01-0.5 (cl.1)
0.2-0.5 (cl.2)
W
0.01-1.9 (cl.1)
0.4-1.9 (cl.2)
≤ 1.0
0.01-1 (cl.1)
0.4-1 (cl.2)
N
0.001-0.04 (cl.1)
0.006-0.035 (cl.2)
--
0.005-0.2 (JP’851)
--
(JP’851)
0.001-0.04 (cl.1)
0.006-0.035 (cl.2)
Re
0.03-0.3 (cl.1)
0.08-0.3 with Y, Hf, Ce (cl.2)
0.01-0.2 including Hf and Y
0.03-0.2 (cl.1)
0.08-0.2 with Y, Hf, Ce (cl.2)
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance and impurities
Balance and impurities
From claims 3-4 (wt%)
One or more of
Cu, V, Co, B (cl.3)
Cu: 0.1 or less; (cl.4)
V: 0.0.1 or less; (cl.4)
Co: 0.03 or less; (cl.4)
B: 0.1 or less (cl.4)
B: 0.001-0.20 (JP’851)
Reads on (JP’851)
From claim 5
Impurities including
S, P, O
Impurities
Reads on
From claim 11 (wt%)
Ta
0.4-2
0.01-1.5 (JP’851)
Overlapping:
0.4-1.5 (JP’851)
From claim 12 (wt%)
Impurities
S: 0.005 or less;
P: 0.005 or less;
O: 0.005 or less
Inevitable impurities level less than 0.1 (JP’851)
Overlapping
S: 0.005 or less;
P: 0.005 or less;
O: 0.005 or less
Claims 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over PG’592 in view of JP’851, and further in view of Kunihide et al (JP 2016132019 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’019).
Regarding claim 7, PG’592 in view of JP’851 does not specify the pipe dimensions as claimed in the instant claim. JP’019 teaches a welding structure of a heat-resistant pipe capable of suppressing structure embrittlement of a weld peripheral part of a pipe outer surface or intergranular corrosion, and improving oxidation resistance (Abstract of JP’019). The major alloy compositions ranges disclosed by JP’019 (claims of JP’019) overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges. MPEP 2144 05 I. JP’019 specify that the heat-resistant tube 20 has, for example, an outer diameter of 50 mm to 160 mm, a wall thickness of 5 mm to 15 mm (par.[0013] of JP’019), which overlaps the claimed pipe dimensions as claimed in the instant claim. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the pipe dimensions as claimed form the disclosure of JP’019 for the alloy of PG’592 in view of JP’851 since all of PG’592, JP’019, and JP’851 teach the same austenitic casting alloy pipe throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claim 8 and 15, the claimed grain features in the instant claims are fully depended on alloy composition and microstructures. Since PG’592 in view of JP’851 and JP’019 teaches the similar alloy compositions with the same austenitic microstructure manufactured by the same centrifugally casting process for the similar dimensions and application, the claimed properties would be highly expected form the alloy of PG’592 in view of JP’851 and JP’019. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734