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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 1 June 2026 claims 1-10 are amended. Claims 1-11 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 1 June 2026 new grounds of rejection are presented.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6110305 A (hereinafter “Nishimura”), in view of US 12467122 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura teaches a method of forming high-strength low-expansion cast iron (See title). Nishimura teaches that the cast iron is used for silicon wafer manufacture (See col 3). Nishimura teaches a broad composition of the cast iron at cols 4-5. Nishimura teaches that the composition of the cast iron includes 0.1-6.0% of a carbide forming element (see col. 4). Nishimura further describes the purpose and function of each of the alloying elements in the cast iron (cols. 8-10). Nishimura teaches that the carbide forming element is selected from at least one element selected from groups Iva, Va, and Via, which elements including Cr (see col. 9-10). Nishimura teaches a number of examples and comparative examples of the cast iron at cols. 12-18. Nishimura describes the compositions of the cast irons at Table 2-1. Nishimura specifies the composition further in claims 1-2. The composition of the prior art claim 1 is compared with the instantly claimed composition in the chart below (all values in weight %).
Element
Claim 1
Nishimura claim 1-2
Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Nickel
Chromium
Phosphorus
Copper
Magnesium
Iron/Impurities
At least approximately 1.0-4.0
At least approximately 1.0-5.0
At least approximately 0.1-1.5
At least approximately 36.5-48.0
At least approximately 0.01-0.25
At least up to approximately 0.08
At least up to approximately 0.5
At least up to approximately 0.15
Remainder
0.3-2.5
Not more than 1.2
Not more than 1.0
25-40
(0.1-6.0 carbide forming element)
--
--
(not more than 0.1 of Mg+Ca)
Remainder
Nishimura teaches that impurities such as phosphorus and sulfur should be limited to no more than 0.2% (col 9).
It would have been an obvious matter to the skilled artisan to have practiced the invention of Nishimura and to have selected chromium as the carbide forming element, because Nishimura teaches that this is one of a limited number of suitable chromium forming elements (cols 9-10). The composition of Nishimura overlaps the range as claimed, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness for that range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have selected a composition in the ranges as claimed because Nishimura teaches the same utility over an overlapping range. Applicant is further directed to MPEP 2144.05.
Nishimura is silent with regard to copper. The lack of disclosure of copper reads one essentially zero, and therefore does not meet the claim limitation.
Marya teaches a high carbide austenitic cast iron (See title), Marya teaches that the alloy includes high amounts of nickel (abstract). Marya investigates the effects of alloying elements in the cast iron structure (See cols 7-10). Marya teaches that the copper may be added in order to achieve a resistance to corrosion (See col. 8). Marya teaches further that when copper is added in small amounts, it has only a small effect on the microstructure (that the ferrite transition of the alloy is stabilized at greater temperatures - See col 10). Marya teaches that the amount of copper in the alloy is 0-1.0% (see col. 9), overlapping the claimed amount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to have altered the invention of Nishimura, as by adding a small amount of copper in order to desirably affect the corrosion resistance of the alloy as taught by Marya (see col 8 and col. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura teaches that other impurities such as phosphorus and sulfur should be limited to no more than 0.2% (col 9).
Regarding claims 3-4, Nishimura teaches carbon at 0.3-2.5 (claim 1), overlapping the claimed ranges and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches nickel at 25-40 (claim 1), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches Mg+Ca at 0.1% or less (claim 1), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura teaches silicon at 1.2% or less (claim 2), overlapping the claimed range and establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura is silent as to niobium content, reading on essentially no niobium.
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura is silent as to aluminum content, reading on essentially no aluminum.
Regarding claim 11, Nishimura teaches spheroidal graphite (see col 9, Examples 13-15, Fig 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 June 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 USC 112 are obviated by the amendment. In response no rejections are made for indefiniteness.
Applicant argues that the prior art Nishimura does not tech to add copper, and therefore the claimed alloy is not anticipated. In response, new grounds of rejection are presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights