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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe (EP) on January 20, 2021. Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 21152452.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of FR 1901397 (FR ‘397) with a filing date of 12 February 2019 has been received. This priority document appears to be different than what is claimed by applicant.
Receipt is acknowledged of WO 2020/164843 (WO ‘843), the WIPO publication of PCT/EP 2020/050967. The Bibliographic Data Sheet states a filing date of this document of January 18, 2022. However, the WO ‘843 has a filing date of January 16, 2020. Further, the WO ‘843 appears to be related to the FR ‘397 foreign priority document, and appears to not be related to the claimed steel powder. For example, both the WO ‘843 and FR ‘397 documents include drawings, whereas the pending application has no drawings. The received priority documents do not appear to be related to the instant application.
Response to Restriction Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that claims 1-14 are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group would necessarily encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining group, such that search and examination could be performed without serious burden (Remarks p. 1 para. 2).
This is not found persuasive because the pending application is a 371 and claims 1 and 14 lack unity of invention as evidenced by the disclosure of Valls Angles (WO 2018/024892) cited on pages 3-4 of the October 1, 2025 Restriction Requirement and by the below pending rejections of claim 1 over van Soest, Ouyang in view of Chen, and Wan in view of Rao. Further, patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113(I).
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventive group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Restriction Election filed November 19, 2025 and Claims filed July 19, 2023.
Claims Filing Date
July 19, 2023
Amended
1-14
Pending
1-14
Withdrawn
14
Under Examination
1-13
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Soest (EP 3719158 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, van Soest discloses a steel powder ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0007], [0016], [0020]-[0037]), where at least one of Ni and Mn is present ([0032]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 2
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Van Soest Disclosure wt%
Van Soest Citation
C
0.05 to 2.0
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
Up to 0.1
[0020]
Mn
14.0 to 30.0
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
0.05 to 15
[0022]
Al
5.0 to 10.0
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
0.004 to 10.0
[0026]
Cr
3.0 to 10.0
3.7 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
Up to 5
[0036]
Si
0.1 to 2.0
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
0.1 to 1.5
[0021]
Ti
0.05 to 1.0
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
Up to 1.8
[0029]
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
0.004 to 0.020
[0024]
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
-
-
Fe
balance
balance
balance
remainder
[0037]
Regarding claim 4, van Soest discloses a composition of the steel powder ([0001], [0007], [0016], [0020]-[0037]).
The limitation of for a fraction of the powder having a median particle diameter of m=10 um, an explosion factor, Ef< 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), wherein Ef= Hf x (1/√m), wherein Hf is the sum of a heat of combustion contributions Hc(element) of each of the elements of Fe, Cr, Ti, Mn, C, Al and Si, wherein the heat of combustion contribution He for each element is expressed by: Hc(element) = Hci(element) x wt.%(element)/100, wherein Hci(element) is a heat of combustion value of each respective element as measured in MJ/kg, wherein Hci(Fe) = 7.4; Hci(Cr)= 6.0; Hci(Ti) = 19.7; Hci(Al)= 31.0; Hci(Mn)= 7.0; Hci(C) = 7.0; and Hci(Si)= 16.0 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. Evaluating the composition disclosed by van Soest in the claimed formula for Ef has a range of 2.34 to 3.16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Hci
Van Soest wt%/100 minimum
Hc minimum
Van Soest wt%/100 maximum
Hc maximum
Fe
7.4
Balance (0.998)
7.39
0.6658
4.93
Cr
6.0
0
0
0.05
0.3
Ti
19.7
0
0
0.018
0.3546
Al
31.0
0.00004
0.00124
0.1
3.1
Mn
7.0
0.0005
0.0035
0.15
1.05
C
7.0
0
0
0.001
0.007
Si
16.0
0.001
0.016
0.015
0.24
Hf
-
-
7.41
-
9.988
Ef
-
-
2.34
-
3.16
Regarding claim 5, van Soest discloses steel powder ([0001], [0007], [0016], [0020]-[0037]) with an Ef< 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.5) (2.35 to 3.16 MJ/kg*um-0.5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, a density D of the steel forming the steel powder, defined as a density of a particle being fully dense and without any closed porosity therein, being less than 7.20 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (van Soest [0001], [0007], [0016], [0020]-[0037]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
In support van Soest discloses higher Al contents, typically at least 7 wt%, reduce the density of the steel powder ([0026]). An Al content of at least 7 to 10.0% ([0026]) overlaps with the claimed range for Al of 5.0 to 10.0 wt%. Further, the average density for steel is about 7.75 g/cm3, such that increasing Al reduces this density, which tends towards that claimed.
Regarding claim 7, (density) D< 6.97 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (van Soest [0001], [0007], [0016], [0020]-[0037]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
In support van Soest discloses higher Al contents, typically at least 7 wt%, reduce the density of the steel powder ([0026]). An Al content of at least 7 to 10.0% ([0026]) overlaps with the claimed range for Al of 5.0 to 10.0 wt%. Further, the average density for steel is about 7.75 g/cm3, such that increasing Al reduces this density, which tends towards that claimed.
Regarding claim 8, van Soest discloses the powder is a gas-atomised powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 100 um (mean particle size 10 to 250 um) ([0038], [0049]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, van Soest discloses the powder is a gas-atomised powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 20 um (mean particle size 10 to 250 um) ([0038], [0049]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, van Soest discloses Al > 6.0 wt.% (0.004 to 10.0 wt%) ([0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, van Soest discloses Al > 6.5 wt.% (0.004 to 10.0 wt%) ([0026]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang (CN 102517520 machine translation) in view of Chen (US 2019/0055622).
Regarding claim 1, Ouyang discloses a steel (alloy) powder with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]).
Ouyang is silent to Ti: 0.05 to 0.3 wt%.
Chen discloses steel ([0001], [0005]) with Ti: 0.05 to 0.3 wt% (0.01 to 0.2%) ([0015], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel alloy powder of Ouyang to include 0.01 to 0.2% Ti to form TiC to increase the yield strength (Chen [0033]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 2
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Ouyang [0013] wt%
C
0.05 to 2.0
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0 to 2.2
Mn
14.0 to 30.0
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
5 to 40
Al
5.0 to 10.0
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
0.01 to 5
Cr
3.0 to 10.0
3.7 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
0 to 10
Si
0.1 to 2.0
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
0 to 0.8
Ti
0.05 to 1.0
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
-
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0.1 to 1.0
Fe
balance
balance
balance
remainder
Regarding claim 2, Ouyang in view of Chen discloses steel (alloy) powder with an overlapping composition (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Ouyang in view of Chen discloses a composition of the steel powder (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]).
The limitation of for a fraction of the powder having a median particle diameter of m=10 um, an explosion factor, Ef< 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), wherein Ef= Hf x (1/√m), wherein Hf is the sum of a heat of combustion contributions Hc(element) of each of the elements of Fe, Cr, Ti, Mn, C, Al and Si, wherein the heat of combustion contribution He for each element is expressed by: Hc(element) = Hci(element) x wt.%(element)/100, wherein Hci(element) is a heat of combustion value of each respective element as measured in MJ/kg, wherein Hci(Fe) = 7.4; Hci(Cr)= 6.0; Hci(Ti) = 19.7; Hci(Al)= 31.0; Hci(Mn)= 7.0; Hci(C) = 7.0; and Hci(Si)= 16.0 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. Evaluating the composition disclosed by Ouyang in view of Chen in the claimed formula for Ef has a range of 2.33 to 2.62 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Element
Hci
Ouyang in view of Chen wt%/100 minimum
Hc minimum
Ouyang in view of Chen wt%/100 maximum
Hc maximum
Fe
7.4
Balance (0.948)
7.01
0.41
3.02
Cr
6.0
0
0
0.1
0.6
Ti
19.7
0.0005
0.0099
0.002
0.039
Al
31.0
0.0001
0.0031
0.05
1.55
Mn
7.0
0.05
0.35
0.4
2.8
Cr
7.0
0
0
0.022
0.154
Si
16.0
0
0
0.008
0.128
Hf
-
-
7.37
-
8.29
Ef
-
-
2.33
-
2.62
Regarding claim 5, Ouyang in view of Chen discloses steel powder (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]) with an Ef< 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.5) (2.33 to 2.62 MJ/kg*um-0.5), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Regarding claim 6, a density D of the steel forming the steel powder, defined as a density of a particle being fully dense and without any closed porosity therein, being less than 7.20 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, (density) D< 6.97 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Ouyang discloses the powder has a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 100 um (-60 mesh, less than 250 um) ([0008], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Ouyang discloses the powder is water atomized ([0015]).
The claim limitation of “a gas-atomised powder” has been considered and determined to be product-by-process. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, such as water atomization. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 9, Ouyang discloses the powder has a median particle diameter m, wherein m <20 um (-60 mesh, less than 250 um) ([0008], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Ouyang discloses the powder is water atomized ([0015]).
The claim limitation of “a gas-atomised powder” has been considered and determined to be product-by-process. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, such as water atomization. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 10, Ouyang discloses Mn ≥ 16.5 wt.% (5 to 40%) ([0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Ouyang discloses Mn ≥ 19 wt.% (5 to 40%) ([0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (US 4,975,335) in view of Rao (Rao and Kumar. High performance stainless steel via powder metallurgy hot isostatic pressing. Materials Science and Technology (1997), 13(12), 1027-1031.).
Regarding claim 1, Wan discloses a steel (1:50-68, 2:55-3:2) with a composition that falls within the scope of the claim (Table X Alloy No. #121).
The example composition of Wan is silent to Si.
Wan discloses up to 2.5 wt% Si (1:64, 2:61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Wan to include up to 2.5 wt% Si because this amount is within the scope of the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 2
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Wan Table X Alloy No. #121
C
0.05 to 2.0
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0.9
Mn
14.0 to 30.0
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
28.0
Al
5.0 to 10.0
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
6.8
Cr
3.0 to 10.0
3.7 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
6.7
Si
0.1 to 2.0
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
-
Ti
0.05 to 1.0
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
0.2
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
-
Fe
balance
balance
balance
balance
Wan discloses casting (3:3-36), working or rolling and annealing to produce a product (3:37-64).
Wan is silent to the steel being a powder.
Rao discloses steel powder (Experimental details, Results and discussion) as an alternative conventionally processed steel (Abstract, Results and discussion paras. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the steel composition of Wan into a powder because the powder forms a PM steel that has higher strength and improved ductility and impact strength compared to conventionally processed steel (Rao Results and discussion para. 7) due to low oxygen content, fine grain size, and a higher degree of chemical homogeneity (Results and discussion para. 8). Further, a powder advantageously produces near net shape components with complex geometry (Results and discussion para. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Wan in view of Rao discloses steel (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2) powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion) with a C, Al, Cr, Ti, and Fe composition that fall within the scope of the claim (Wan Table X Alloy No. #121) and a Si content that overlaps with that claimed (Wan 1:64, 2:61-62).
The example composition of Wan has 28.0% Mn, which is outside the claimed scope of 15.0 to 26.0%.
Wan discloses 10 to 45 wt% Mn (1:57-58, 2:57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Wan to vary the Mn between 10 to 45% because this amount is within the scope of the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Wan in view of Rao discloses steel (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2) powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion) with a C, Al, Cr, Ti, and Fe composition that fall within the scope of the claim (Wan Table X Alloy No. #121) and a Si content that overlaps with that claimed (Wan 1:64, 2:61-62).
The example composition of Wan has 28.0% Mn, which is outside the claimed scope of 15.0 to 26.0%.
Wan discloses 10 to 45 wt% Mn (1:57-58, 2:57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Wan to vary the Mn between 10 to 45% because this amount is within the scope of the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wan in view of Rao discloses a composition of the steel (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121) powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion).
The limitation of for a fraction of the powder having a median particle diameter of m=10 um, an explosion factor, Ef< 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), wherein Ef= Hf x (1/√m), wherein Hf is the sum of a heat of combustion contributions Hc(element) of each of the elements of Fe, Cr, Ti, Mn, C, Al and Si, wherein the heat of combustion contribution He for each element is expressed by: Hc(element) = Hci(element) x wt.%(element)/100, wherein Hci(element) is a heat of combustion value of each respective element as measured in MJ/kg, wherein Hci(Fe) = 7.4; Hci(Cr)= 6.0; Hci(Ti) = 19.7; Hci(Al)= 31.0; Hci(Mn)= 7.0; Hci(C) = 7.0; and Hci(Si)= 16.0 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. Evaluating the composition disclosed by Wan in the claimed formula for Ef has a range of 2.79 to 2.86 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Element
Hci
Wan wt%/100 minimum
Hc minimum
Wan wt%/100 maximum
Hc maximum
Fe
7.4
Balance (0.574)
4.25
Balance (0.549)
4.06
Cr
6.0
0.067
0.402
0.067
0.402
Ti
19.7
0.002
0.0394
0.002
0.0394
Al
31.0
0.068
2.108
0.068
2.108
Mn
7.0
0.28
1.96
0.28
1.96
C
7.0
0.009
0.063
0.009
0.063
Si
16.0
0
0
0.025
0.4
Hf
-
-
8.82
-
9.04
Ef
-
-
2.79
-
2.86
Regarding claim 5, Wan in view of Rao (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion) discloses Ef< 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.5) (2.79 to 2.86 MJ/kg*um-0.5), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Regarding claim 6, a density D of the steel forming the steel powder, defined as a density of a particle being fully dense and without any closed porosity therein, being less than 7.20 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, (density) D< 6.97 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Wan in view of Rao discloses gas (argon)-atomised powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 100 um (As received powder with median particle size of 98 um) (Rao Abstract, Experimental details para. 1, Figs. 1-2, Table 2)
Regarding claim 9, Wan in view of Rao discloses gas (argon)-atomised powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details para. 1).
With respect to the powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 20 um, Rao discloses a powder blend with an adjusted, lower median particle size (Rao Experimental details para. 1) to adjust the tap density (Rao Results and discussion para. 2) for improved density (Rao Conclusions) with a finer grain size (Rao Results and discussion para. 8), which results in higher strength and improved ductility and impact strength (Rao Results and discussion para. 7).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or median particle size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or median particle size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claimed are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Wan discloses Mn ≥ 16.5 wt.% (28.0%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Regarding claim 11, Wan discloses Mn ≥ 19 wt.% (28.0%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Regarding claim 12, Wan discloses Al > 6.0 wt.% (6.8%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Regarding claim 13, Wan discloses Al > 6.5 wt.% (6.8%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Related Art
Chao (US 3,954,461)
Chao discloses production of water atomized steel powders with a low apparent density (1:7-11) lower than 2.8 gm/cc (1:61-64), a carbon content below about 0.10% (2:7-56) and a particle size distribution that is finer than 80 mesh (less than 177 um) (2:57-68).
Shu (CN 103691955 machine translation)
Shu discloses a steel (alloy) powder with an overlapping composition ([0020]).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 2
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Shu [0020] wt%
C
0.05 to 2.0
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0 to 2.2
Mn
14.0 to 30.0
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
5 to 40
Al
5.0 to 10.0
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
0.01 to 5
Cr
3.0 to 10.0
3.7 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
0 to 10
Si
0.1 to 2.0
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
0 to 0.8
Ti
0.05 to 1.0
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
-
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
-
Fe
balance
balance
balance
balance
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735