CTFR 18/281,812 CTFR 92967 DETAILED ACTION Claims 8-13 are pending, and claims 8-9 are currently under review. Claims 1-7 are cancelled. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed 5/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-13 remain(s) pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 8-9 are 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 8 recites the term “high pressure”, which is indefinite because “high” is a relative term which is not further defined by the instant specification or claims. It is unclear whether “high” requires some particular pressure value, or merely a category of pressure values, or something else entirely. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any steel for hydrogen applications. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN106834940, machine translation referred to herein) alone or alternatively further in view of Takagi et al. (US 2016/0053355) . Regarding claim 8, Deng et al. discloses a steel plate for hydrogen pressures vessels having a composition as seen in table 1 below [0002, 0007]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Deng et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Although Deng et al. discloses a plate rather than a pipe, the examiner notes that a pipe is merely a specific recitation of a shape which is a prima facie obvious design choice because one of ordinary skill would have reasonably been able to select the shape of a pipe for pipe applications such as transportation. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). The examiner further notes that hydrogen vessels which naturally be at a pressure that would be considered “high”. Deng et al. is further silent regarding any inclusions of N, O, H, or austenite microstructures, such that one of ordinary skill would have recognize these inclusions to be absent (ie. 0%). Deng et al. does not expressly teach a number of inclusions as claimed. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that steel microstructure is directly influenced by steel composition and manufacturing. Accordingly, Deng et al. teaches an overlapping steel composition as stated above. Deng et al. further teaches a manufacturing method that overlaps with the method of the instant application as shown in table 1 below. Since Deng et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and method of manufacture, similar overlapping inclusion parameters would have naturally flowed absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, Deng et al. does not expressly teach the shape of a pipe as claimed. Takagi et al. discloses that it is known to provide steel for hydrogen containers in a variety of different shapes, including both plates and pipes [0002]. In other words, Takagi et al. discloses that plates and pipes are both useful steel shapes/structures for transporting and storing hydrogen such that it would have been obvious to substitute one shape for another. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) & MPEP 2144.06. Table 1. Element (wt.%) Claim 8 (wt.%) Deng et al. (wt.%) C 0.05 – 0.6 0.13 – 0.16 Si 0.001 – 2 0.2 – 0.4 Mn 0.01 – 5 0.45 – 0.6 P 0 – 0.03 0 – 0.01 S 0 – 0.01 0 – 0.005 N 0 – 0.01 0 Al 0.0001 – 1 0.02 – 0.05 O 0 – 0.01 0 H 0 – 0.0001 0 Fe & Impurities Balance Balance Manufacturing Parameters Instant application [0043-0052 instant spec.] Deng et al. [0035] Continuous casting at 1 m/min or slower Continuous casting at 0.75 to 1.05 m/min Slab heating at 1350 degrees C or lower Slab heating at up to 1280 degrees C Hot rolling with finish rolling at 820 degrees C or higher Hot rolling with final rolling at 920 to 950 degrees C Cooling to 50 degrees C by cooling at 5 degrees C per second or faster within 800 to 350 degrees C and slower than 3 degrees C within 350 to 50 degrees C Water cooling (overlaps) Tempering at 400 degrees C to Ac1 for at least 60 minutes Tempering at 750 to 760 degrees C for at least 120 minutes Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 8 (see previous). Deng et al. further teaches an inclusion of Cr in an amount of 0.9 to 1.1 weight percent, among others, which falls within the claimed ranges [0007] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omura et al. (JP2018012855, machine translation referred to herein) in view of either one of Zhu et al. (CN104561837, machine translation referred to herein) or Li et al. (US 2016/0002759) . Regarding claim 8, Omura et al. discloses a steel pipe for high pressure hydrogen pressures vessels having a composition as seen in table 2 below [abstract, 0001, 0014]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the composition of Omura et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Omura et al. further teaches a microstructure of 80% or more martensite (ie. 20% or less of all others microstructures including austenite) and controlling a number of inclusions having a size of 20 micrometers or more to be 10 per 100 mm or less [0065, 0072]. Omura et al. does not specifically limit the inclusion aspect ratio, such that one of ordinary skill would understand the disclosure of Omura et al. to have regular shaped inclusions (ie. aspect ratio less than 2) and be absent inclusions having higher aspect ratios. The examiner notes that the overlap between the microstructure and inclusions of Omura et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Omura et al. does not expressly teach an inclusion of H as claimed. Zhu et al. discloses a steel for pressure vessels [0002]; wherein it is known to limit an amount of H to be less than 0.0002 weight percent as an impurity to achieve desirable mechanical properties [0008-0009]. Li et al. also discloses that it is know to limit an amount of H in structural steels to be less than 0.0004 weight percent because H is known to be harmful to welding performance, toughness, and crack resistance [abstract, 0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the steel of Omura et al. by limiting H to the amounts disclosed by either Zhu et al. or Li et al. for the aforementioned reasons. In either situation, the examiner notes that the overlap between the H amounts of the prior art and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Table 2. Element (wt.%) Claim 8 (wt.%) Omura et al. (wt.%) C 0.05 – 0.6 0.13 – 0.16 Si 0.001 – 2 0.2 – 0.4 Mn 0.01 – 5 0.45 – 0.6 P 0 – 0.03 0 – 0.01 S 0 – 0.01 0 – 0.005 N 0 – 0.01 0 Al 0.0001 – 1 0.02 – 0.05 O 0 – 0.01 0 H 0 – 0.0001 0 – 0.0002 (Zhu et al.) 0 – 0.0004 (Li et al.) Fe & Impurities Balance Balance Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the steel of claim 8 (see previous). Omura et al. further teaches an inclusion of Cr in an amount of up to 5 weight percent, among others, which falls within the claimed ranges [042] . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/05/2026 regarding the 112b rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “high pressure” requires pressure ranges that are well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as for example 35 to 85 MPa as noted by Takagi et al. The examiner cannot concur. The background disclosure of Takagi et al. discloses several different pressure ranges and values, such as a “maximum filling pressure” of 35 MPa for vehicles, a desired maximum pressure of 75 MPa, a lower required limit of 40 MPa, a higher desired maximum limit of 80 MPa, a general level of 15 MPa or higher, etc. [0004-0005]. Accordingly, as evidenced by Takagi et al., a wide variety of different pressure ranges can be considered to be “high pressure”, which supports the examiner’s position of indefiniteness, contrary to applicant’s arguments . 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 5/05/2026 regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed inclusion parameters would not necessarily flow from Deng et al. because Deng et al. does not teach specifically cooling to 50 degrees C or lower at 5 degrees C per second or higher in a range of 800 to 350 degrees C and 3 degrees C per second or slower at a range of 350 degrees C to 50 degrees C. In response, the previous and above rejections expressly state that Deng et al. teaches water cooling, which one of ordinary skill would understand to achieve cooling rates that overlap with the aforementioned ranges, and so overlapping inclusion parameters would have naturally flowed. See MPEP 2112. Applicant further has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to how the differences in cooling between Deng et al. and the instant application would affect the claimed inclusion parameters. Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks absent concrete evidence or reasoning to the contrary, which applicant has not provided. Alternatively, although not expressly argued by applicant, if applicant is challenging the examiner’s position that water cooling would achieve overlapping cooling rates per MPEP 2144.03, the examiner still cannot concur. ASM Handbooks, for example, clearly shows that water cooling achieves a variety of cooling behaviors which would overlap with the aforementioned ranges [see for example p.97, 102-103, 105, 116]. Applicant then argues that the inclusions of Omura et al. pertain to a size of 20 micrometers or more, which does not meet the claims. The examiner cannot concur. As stated above, the disclosed inclusion parameters of Omura et al. clearly overlap with the claimed ranges, which is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant absent evidence of teaching away or criticality of the claimed range, which has not been presented. Applicant then argues that the silence of Deng et al. regarding N, O, H, etc. does not meet the claimed ranges. The examiner cannot concur. Firstly, as recognized by applicant, Deng et al. is silent regarding any inclusions of N, O, H, etc. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that this silence means that the aforementioned elements are not included (ie. 0 percent inclusions), which meets the claimed ranges. Therefore, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks absent concrete evidence to the contrary which has not been presented. Applicant further argues that Deng et al. and Omura et al. do not teach the claimed austenite range. The examiner cannot concur. As expressly recognized by applicant, Omura et al. allows for up to 20 percent non-martensite phases, which overlaps with the claimed austenite range. Furthermore, as stated previously, Deng et al. does not teach any inclusion of austenite, such that one of ordinary skill would understand austenite to be absent (ie. 0 percent), which meets the claim. Again, if applicant is of the position that the disclosure of Deng et al. requires austenite amounts that do not meet the claim, the examiner cannot concur with applicant’s mere conclusory remarks absent concrete evidence to the contrary which has not been presented. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5. 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 Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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. /NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 2 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 3 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 4 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 5 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 6 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 7 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 8 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 10 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 11 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 12 Art Unit: 1734 Application/Control Number: 18/281,812 Page 13 Art Unit: 1734
Prosecution Insights