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 24-43, in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 24-46 are pending. Claims 24-43 are presented for this examination. Claims 44-46 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/25/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 24-43 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the one of the desired steel powder" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear whether the one of the desired steel powder refers to the adjusted steel composition in each of the plurality of induction furnace or something else.
Claim 24 the second refining step in vacuum arc degasser is unclear as to whether the second refining step is to refine the molten steel from the first refining step or the molten steel from the providing step.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the desired composition of each induction furnace" in line 12 and “the desired composition” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear whether “the desired composition of each induction furnace” refers to the adjusted steel composition from the adding step or something else. Clarification is required.
It is unclear whether “the molten steel” in claim 25 refers to the formed molten steel during the first refining step in claim 24 or the refined molten steel during the second refining step in claim 24.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the dissolved O content" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the slag" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear whether “the steel” to be stirred with the slag is the same as molten steel.
The term “pure element” in claim 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As a result of rejected claim 24, all dependents claims are rejected under the same statue.
Claim Objections
Instant claim 25 is labeled as “withdrawn” which is in clear error in view of instant claim 25 depends on independent claim 24. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-43 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Closest prior art is Kim (US20130180360) and JP’264(JP2006233264A)
Kim discloses instant claim 24 providing molten iron from a blast furnace, refining the molten iron in a converter to form molten steel comprising claimed C, S, P, N and O, feed gas atomizer of each reservoir in molten steel under pressure and gas atomizing the molten steel to form the steel powder.
However, Kim does not disclose refining the molten steel in a vacuum arc degasser to obtain a refined molten steel with claimed C, S, P, N and O and pouring the refined molten steel in a plurality of induction furnace.
JP’264 disclose presence of a single induction furnace in a similar process of Kim. However, JP’624 does not disclose adding in each of plurality of induction furnace, at least one ferroalloy to adjust the steel composition and pouring the molten steel at the desired composition of each induction furnace in a dedicated reservoir connected to at least one gas atomizer.
No prior art can be found to disclose instant claim 24 features.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 24-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25-43 of co-pending application’774 ( 18/283,774) in view of Hwang (US20130152740A1) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claimed inventions claim a process for the production of steel powders, the process comprising the steps of: providing molten iron from a blast furnace; refining the molten iron in a converter to form molten steel including up to 600 ppm C, up to 120Oppm S, up to 125 ppm P,up to 50ppm N; and up to 1200 ppm O; pouring the molten steel into a plurality of induction furnaces; adding, in each of the plurality of induction furnaces, at least one ferroalloy to adjust the steel composition to the one of a desired composition of a steel powder; pouring the molten steel at the desired composition of each induction furnace in a dedicated reservoir connected to at least one gas atomizer; and feeding the at least one gas atomizer of each reservoir in molten steel from each reservoir under pressure and gas atomizing the molten steel to form the steel powder at the desired composition.
co-pending application’774 does not disclose “refining the molten steel in a vacuum arc degasser to obtain a refined molten steel comprising from 20 to less than 600 ppm C, from 15 to less than 120 ppm S, up to 125 ppm P, up to 80 ppm N and up to 30 ppm O”.
Hwang discloses molten iron obtained from converter steelmaking and electric arc furnace is generally refined by ladle furnace or vacuum arc degasser to reduce the contents of phosphorus, sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen. [0004]
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply additional refining step such as refining the molten steel in a vacuum arc degasser as suggested by Hwang, in the process of co-pending application’774 for the purpose of further reducing the contents of phosphorus, sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights