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Claims 10-13 are withdrawn.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
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 8-9, in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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].
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].
Conclusion
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