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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-3, in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/23/2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (WO 2015/030210A1)(machine translation provided).
With respect to Claim 1, Hara teaches a steel sheet for a pipe, the steel having a composition, by weight%, as follows (pgs. 1 and 3-6 of translation):
Claim 1
Hara
C
0.06-0.12
0.04-0.08
Si
0.10-0.50
0.05-5.0, pref. 0.1-0.3
Mn
0.8-2.2
1.2-2.0
P
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.03, pref. ≤ 0.01
S
≤ 0.001
≤ 0.005, pref. ≤ 0.002
Nb
>0.05 to 0.1
0.01-0.05
Cr
0.05-0.6
0.01-0.50
Ti
>0.02 to <0.05
0.005-0.03
Ca
0.001-0.006
0.0005-0.005
N
≤ 0.008
0.001-0.008
Fe
Balance with inevitable impurities
Balance with unavoidable impurities
Compositional ranges including zero (e.g. the claimed contents of P, S, and N) are interpreted as optional elements. Thus, Hara teaches a steel with compositional ranges overlapping each of the instantly required ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the portion of the overlapping ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
With respect to the claimed microstructural phases, both the “entire region” and the “in a 2/5 to 3/5 region,” are interpreted such that up to 100% of the respective regions comprise one or more of acicular ferrite and bainite, wherein the other recited phases (e.g. martensite, pearlite) are optional as no lower bounds are claimed. Hara teaches wherein a microstructure in the steel sheet at both the surface and central portion of the sheet, may comprise up to 100% of one or both of bainite and acicular ferrite, the remainder comprising up to 5% of martensite-austenite and/or ferrite, and therefore, is deemed to teach microstructural phase contents overlapping the “entire region” and “in a 2/5 to 3/5 region” overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. (pgs. 2, 7-8 of translation).
Additionally, the reference teaches wherein the average crystal grain size (and thus the average grain size of the bainite and acicular ferrite) is preferably 10 microns or less, wherein the grain size is preferably minimized. (pg. 8 of translation; “The smaller the effective crystal grain size, the more stable and high toughness can be obtained.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the overlapping microstructural phase and average grain size ranges. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Finally, with respect to the claimed “excellent hydrogen-induced crack resistance,” the limitation does not require any specific measure of crack resistance. Hara teaches wherein the steel is useful for line pipes requiring resistance to cracking in hydrogen sulfide environments, in addition to strength and low-temperature toughness, and therefore, is deemed to teach a steel having excellent hydrogen-induced crack resistance. (pg. 2 of translation). See also MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to Claim 2, Hara teaches a CLR measurement of 10% or less, the measurement conducted under TM0284, deemed to fall within the instantly claimed range and conditions. (p. 14 of translation). Moreover, as the reference is drawn to improving hydrogen sulfide crack resistance and minimizing a CLR measurement value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the steel of Hara to minimize the CLR under the recited conditions, in order to obtain a steel sheet with improved utility as a line pipe. MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 3, Hara teaches wherein the steel sheet has a tensile strength of 500-700 MPa and a yield strength of 440 MPa or more, overlapping the claimed ranges. (pgs. 9, 14 of translation). The reference further teaches the ability to increase tensile and yield strength, but is specifically drawn to balancing the strength of the steel sheet and the low-temperature toughness of the material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a steel exhibiting overlapping tensile and yield strengths from the portions of the overlapping ranges, and further, to optimize the strength when higher strength is desired over higher low-temperature toughness. Overlapping ranges, in particular, where the ranges of a claimed composition overlap with the ranges disclosed in the prior art, have been held sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140190597 to Hara, having a similar, but not identical, disclosure to WO 2015030210.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A HEVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0361. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/JOHN A HEVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735