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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending and are presented for this examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/17/2023, 03/27/2024 and 06/24/2025 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claim 7 required “low impact value ratio” is interpreted as the number of test pieces having an impact value of less than 20 J/cm2 to a total number of test pieces” in view of instant application specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’032 (JP2008121032A).
As for claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8, JP’032 disclose a die steel for use in a large die having a mass of 500 kg or more, which overlap instant claim 8 required mass of 2000 kg or more. [0001]
The die steel is used for making die casting molds. [0002] Hence, instant claim 8 mold is met. Table 1-III (page 12) demonstrates all Inventive die steels have HRC ranging from 44.6-45.4 HRC which overlaps instant claim 4 required 35-45 HRC. Same table also demonstrates average impact value is 25 J/cm2 or more as required by instant claim 6. The fact no test pieces having impact value less than 20 J/cm2 suggests low impact value ratio is 0% according to claim interpretation above, which meets 30% or less as required by instant claim 7.
Table 1 below illustrates the die steel comprises overlapping elemental compositions as required by instant claims 1-2.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, based on the teaching of JP’032, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by JP’032 in order to arrive at steel of claimed invention.
Table 1
Element
Applicant
(weight %)
JP’032
et al.
(weight %)
Overlap
(weight %)
C
0.19-0.31
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.31
V
0.01-0.18
0.01-2
0.01-0.18
Mn
<=1.5
0.1-2
0.1-1.5
Cr
5.6-6.6
0.1-8
5.6-6.6
Cu+Ni
<=0.84
Si
0.4-1.4
0.01-1.5
0.4-1.4
Mo
0.6-2
0.01-5
0.6-2
Al
0.001-0.08
0.002-0.04
0.002-0.04
N
0.003-0.04
0.002-0.04
0.003-0.04
Mn/Cr
>0.15
W (Claim 2)
0.3-2
0.01-2
0.3-2
With respect to instant claim 1 required Cu+Ni and Mn/Cr, it is well settled that there is no invention in the discovery of a general formula if it covers a composition described in the prior art, in re Cooper and Foley 1943 C.D. 357, 553 O.G. 177; 57 USPQ 117, Taklatwalla v. Marburg, 620 O.G. 685, 1949 C.D. 77, and In re Pilling, 403 O.G. 513, 44 F(2) 878, 1931 C.D. 75. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the selection of the proportions of elements would appear to require no more than routine investigation by those ordinary skilled in the art. In re Austin, et al., 149 USPQ 685, 688. In the instant case, JP’032 discloses Inventive Examples 1-4, 6, 9-22 all meet claimed Cu+Ni and Mn/Cr ranges.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’032 in view of Zhang (CN114875334A).
As for claim 5, JP’032 does not expressly disclose the hardness difference as claimed.
Zhang discloses a pre-hardened mold steel having similar composition as JP’032 and expressly discloses hardness uniformity is achieved through hardness difference between the core portion and an outer periphery being <=3 HRC. (Abstract last two lines)
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply hardness difference between the core portion and an outer periphery <-3 HRC as disclosed by Zhang, in the steel of JP’032 as Zhang for the benefit of hardness uniformity.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’032 in view of Plastic_Moulding_Size(NPL document “Understanding Plastic Moulding Sizes”)
As for claim 3, JP’032 discloses the die steel for use in a die casting mold has a mass of 500 Kg or more, which overlaps claimed 3000 Kg or more.
JP’032 does not disclose claimed minimum dimension >-300 mm.
Plastic_Moulding_Size discloses mold size varies drastically depending on industry and use. (Page 9 Table) For example, for automobile part like car bumper, mold size of 1500 mmx1300 mm is required. That is, mold dimension is a design choice depending on the molded automobile part type.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply minimum dimension of at least 1300 mm as disclosed by Plastic_Moulding_Size, in the steel material of JP’032 for the purpose of making a car bumper.
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