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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, 18 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “a micro-structure of the steel bar is ferrite and bainite, and the ferrite accounts for 28%-40%”. Ferrite and bainite describes two different types of steel microstructures. Using a singular term “a” for a steel bar having two different types of micro-structures in the steel bar causes confusion. It is unclear if a combination of ferrite and bainite is considered a micro-structure of the steel bar, which allows presence of additional types of micro-structure in the steel bar, or if the steel bar only has ferrite and bainite in its micro-structure. Additionally, the claimed “ferrite accounts of 28%-40%” is also indefinite since it does not provide proper context for the claimed amounts of ferrite. It is unclear if the 28-40% ferrite is determined based on all microstructure in the steel bar or based only on combination of ferrite and bainite. Therefore, instant claim 3 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “an A-type inclusion, B-type inclusion, C-type inclusion and D-type inclusion of the steel bar at the standard of GB/T10561 are all less than or equal to 1.0 level”. The meaning for A-, B-, C-, D-types inclusions and the meanings of their respective levels being less than or equal to 1.0 level are not provided by the instant claim or the instant specification. The claimed standard of GB/T10561 appears to be a Chinese testing method for measuring nonmetallic inclusions in steel. However, instant specification does not provide any explanation of this method. Additionally, claim 4 recites the limitation "the standard of GB/T10561" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For these reasons, the examiner finds claim 4 vague and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the chloride ion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites "a tapping temperature of the converter smelting working procedure is 1600-1660°C" in line 3. Then, claim 10 further recites “a tapping temperature is 1630-1670°C” in lines 8-9 , which seems to be related to a steel ladle in the AOD furnace as disclosed on line 7. However, there isn’t a tapping step explicitly included in claim 10 in the converter smelting working procedure. The claimed two tapping temperatures cause confusion as to if two tapping steps, one for the converter smelting and one for the AOD furnace refining, are positively recited in the scope of instant claims Therefore, claim 10 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the tapping process" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 11 recites two tapping temperatures, one for the LF furnace and the other one for the RH furnace without explicitly recite respective tapping steps. It is unclear if the scope of the instant claim 11 includes tapping steps in the LF furnace refining process and the RH furnace refining process or not without positive recitation of tapping steps. Therefore, the instant claim 11 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the two steel bars" in lines 1-2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the square billet continuous casting working procedure" in lines 16 and 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 also recites the limitation "the tapping process" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 18 recites multiple tapping temperatures related to converter smelting, AOD furnace refining, LF furnace refining, and RF furnace refining. An explicit recitation of a tapping step is only provided for the AOD furnace refining. It is unclear of tapping steps are occurring in all of these process steps above or just the AOD furnace refining. Therefore, the instant claim 18 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the two steel bars" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP1,378,580(EP580), and further in view of CN107641757(CN757) .
EP580 teaches a high strength corrosion resistant steel bar having a composition that applies to the claimed steel bar as follows:
Steel bar (mass%)
Instant application
EP580
Cr
9.5-10.4
About 8 to about 10
Mo
1.0-1.2
≤ about 1.0
Mn
0.3-0.6
About 0.01 to about 0.30
Ni
0.01-1.00
About 0.01 to about 1.0
Cu
0.01-0.5
About 0.01 to about 1.0
C
≤ 0.014
About 0.0025 to about 0.010
N
≤ 0.004
About 0.0025 to about 0.010
Nb
0.01-0.05
Si
0.2-0.6
About 0.01 to about 1.0
S
≤ 0.004
≤ about 0.03
O
≤ 0.003
-
As
≤ 0.01
-
P
0.01-0.03
≤ about 0.04
One or more of V,TI, Al, B
V: 0.1-0.15; Ti: 0.01-0.05
Al: 0.01-0.03; B:0.0005-0.0020
V: About 0.01 to about 0.20
Al: ≤ about 0.05
Balance of Fe & impurities
Balance Fe & impurities
Balance Fe & impurities
Regarding claims 1-2, EP580 further teaches that its steel bar has a tensile strength of about 400 to about 450 MPa(abstract), which indicates that it is a 400MPa steel bar as claimed.
However, EP580 does not explicitly teach the presence of Nb as claimed.
CN757 teaches a high strength corrosion resistant steel bar comprising 9-11wt% Cr, ≤ 1 wt% Mo, 0.2-0.6 wt% Mn, 0.01-0.025 wt% Ni, and 0.01-0.03wt% of Nb(abstract). CN757 further teaches that Nb has the effect of refining crystal grains, strengthening precipitation and dispersion[0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the 0.01-0.03wt% Nb as taught by CN757 into the steel bar composition of EP580 in order to refine crystal grains and strengthen precipitation and dispersion as taught by CN757.
Additionally, the chemical composition in the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 significantly overlaps the claimed steel bar composition. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The selection of claimed steel bar chemical composition from the composition of the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since EP580 in view of CN757 teach the same utilities in their disclosed steel bar composition.
Furthermore, the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 would have had a corresponding Cr+Mo+0.5Mn+0.35Ni+0.25Cu in the range that overlapped the claimed 11.1-12.2%, and with some embodiments reading directly on the claimed range(for example, when Cr, Mo, Mn and Ni are at their upper limits and Cu is 0.5mass%, Cr+Mo+0.5Mn+0.35Ni+0.25Cu = 11.625). The steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 would have also had a corresponding C+N+0.3Si+Mn+1.8Nb in the range that overlapped the claimed 0.4-0.8 mass%, and with some embodiments reading directly on the claimed range(for example, in mass%, when C is 0.010, N is 0.004, Si is 0.6, Mn is 0.30 and Nb is 0.030, C+N+0.3Si+Mn+1.8Nb = 0.548). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed Cr+Mo+0.5Mn+0.35Ni+0.25Cu range and/or the claimed C+N+0.3Si+Mn+1.8Nb range are/is significant. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, high strength 400MPa corrosion resistant steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 has a chemical composition that is significantly similar to claimed 400MPa corrosion resistance steel bar. Additionally, EP580 in view of CN757 do not teach the presence of any type of inclusions in their 400MPa corrosion resistant steel bar, which means that amounts of the claimed A-,B-,C-,D-types inclusions in the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 would be zero, which read on the claimed amounts of all less than or equal to 1.0 level if measured by the claimed standard of GB/T10561.
Regarding claim 6, although EP580 in view of CN757 does not explicitly teach the claimed nominal diameter for their steel bar, it is well-known that the steel bars of different nominal diameters can be manufactured to satisfy the needs of different applications. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have arrived at the claimed 6-32mm nominal diameter via routine optimization in order to achieve desired steel bar size for its intended application.
Regarding claim 7, making coiled or straight steel bars are common practices in the steel industry. It would have been well within the skills of an ordinary artisan to have made the steel bar either in coiled or straight form depending on the application with expected success, regardless of the nominal diameter of the steel bar, absent persuasive evidence that the claimed nominal diameters as prerequisites forming coiled or straight steel bar are significant.
Regarding claim 8, the recited average weight loss corrosion rate, self-corrosion potential, polarization resistance and self-corrosion current density are all inherent property of the claimed 400 MPa steel bar. Since the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 is materially significantly similar to the claimed 400MPa steel bar, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757 to have significantly similar properties, including the claimed average weight loss corrosion rate, self-corrosion potential, polarization resistance and self-corrosion current density.
Regarding claims 9-15, the instant claims recite process limitations relating to how the claimed steel bar is made. However, the instant claims 9-15 are product-by-process claims. It is well settled that a product-by-process claim defines a product, and that when the prior art discloses a product substantially the same as that being claimed, the burden falls upon the applicant to show that any process steps associated therewith results in a product materially different from that disclosed in the prior art. See In re Thorpe, (227 USPQ 964), In re Brown, (173 USPQ 685), In re Fessman, (180 USPQ 524) and MPEP 2113. In this case, since EP580 in view of CN757 teaches a 400MPa steel bar having substantially the same chemical composition as claimed, the burden falls up on the applicant to show that the process steps of claims 9-15 would result in a steel bar materially different from the steel bar of EP580 in view of CN757.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-17 and 19 are allowed.
Claim 18 and 20 do not have any art rejection since they depend on allowable claim 16.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the closest prior art is EP580 (see discussion in section 7 above). EP580 additionally teaches the presence of claimed ferrite and bainite grain structure. However, EP580, alone or in combination with CN575, does not teach the claimed ferrite amount of 28-40%.
With respect to claim 5, the closest prior art is EP580 (see discussion in section 7 above). However, the steel bar as taught by EP580 has a lower yield strength, tensile strength than claimed. EP580, alone or in combination with CN575, does not teach the claimed maximum force total elongation percentage.
With respect to claims 16-20, the closest prior art with respect to the process steps recited in instant independent claim 16 is CN103789677(CN677). CN677 recites a method to manufacture a high strength steel bar comprising steps of desulfurization, converter smelting, furnace refining, continuous casting, controlled rolling and controlled cooling steps, wherein the controlling rolling includes rough rolling at 1100-1200°C, medium rolling to 1050°C and final rolling[0053], wherein the controlled cooling at 925°C. However, the chemical composition of the high strength steel bar of CN677 has lower amounts of Cr and Mo and a higher amount of Ni than claimed steel bar. CN677 also does not teach the claimed heating time and duration in its controlled rolling step. Furthermore, CN677 does not teach the claimed cooling in a Stelmor cooling manner(i.e. a type of controlled conveyor cooling method).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, Zhenwei, et al. "Analysis of Standard GB/T 10561-2023: Determination of Content of Nonmetallic Inclusions in Steel-Micrographic Method Using Standard Diagrams", Iron Steel Vanadium Titanium, Vol. 45, No.1, February 2024. Zhang et al. discusses the differences between previous version of GB/T10561-2005 and the current version of GB/T10561-2023.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 571-272-1401. 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733