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
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 depend on claim 5, the limitation of “a seventh step” on line 3 is suggested to be amended as “a sixth step” since claim 5 indicates from first to fifth steps. Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokutanda et al (US-PG-pub 2008/0121319 A1, thereafter PG’319) in view of Sasaki et al (CN 1093122 A, with on-line translation, thereafter CN’122).
Regarding claims 1-4, PG’319 teaches a high hardness, high corrosion resistance and high wear resistance alloy, wherein the alloy is an aging heat treated Cr(chromium)-Al(aluminum)-Ni(nickel)-base alloy and component comprising this alloy (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’319), which reads on the Ni-based alloy (claims 1 and 3) and Ni-based alloy member (claims 2 and 4). The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges and those disclosed by PG’319 has been listed in following table. All of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by PG’319 (Examples on par.[0086], claims 3-5, and par.[0055] of PG’319) are within or overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the alloy composition ranges as claimed from the disclosing of PG’319 since PG’319 teaches the same steel sheet throughout whole disclosing range. PG’319 specify that three phases of a, g', and g in the aged structure are stably precipitated (par.[0056] of PG’319) and PG’319 indicates the average grain diameter not more than 500 mm and the mixed phase of (a, g', and g phase) precipitated at the grain boundaries is not more than 2 mm (cl.2, par.[0016]-[0017] of PG’319), which reads on the claimed a and g phase and overlaps the claimed dimensions as claimed in the instant claim 1 and 3. Overlapping in dimeters of phases creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the alloy composition ranges as claimed from the disclosing of PG’319 since PG’319 teaches the same steel sheet throughout whole disclosing range. PG’319 specify micron size fine precipitation structure in the alloy (par.[0074] OF PG’319). PG’319 does not specify the M23C6 type carbide as claimed in the instant claims 1 and 3, forming M23C6 type carbide in a Ni-based alloy is well-known as demonstrated by CN’122. CN’122 teaches Ni-based alloy including matrix metal phase crystallization and/or carbide precipitation carbide with less than 5mm (4th paragraph of CN’122) and CN’122 teaches including (Fe, Cr, V, W)23C6 in the Ni based alloy. (1st paragraph on page 9 of CN’122), which reads on the M23C6 type carbide and overlaps the claimed particle size range as claimed in the instant claims. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the precipitates M23C6 type carbide size range as demonstrated by CN’122 in the Ni-based alloy of PG’319 in order to obtain excellent corrosion resistance and wear resistance (abstract and claims of CN’122).
Element
From instant Claims 1 and 3 (mass%)
The Example on par.[0086] of PG’319 (mass %)
Overlapping range
(mass %)
C
>0.1-0.30
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
>0.1-0.30
Si
≤ 0.50
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.50
Mn
≤ 0.50
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.50
P
≤ 0.030
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.030
S
≤ 0.010
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.010
Cu
≤ 3.00
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 3.00
Cr
30.0-39.0
38.2
38.2
Fe
≤ 3.00
Not intended added
0-impurity level
Al
2.00-5.00
3.78
3.78
O
≤ 0.0100
Not more than 0.3 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.0100
N
≤ 0.050
Not intended added
0-impurity level
Nb
≤ 0.50
Not more than 1 (claim 5)
≤ 0.50
V
≤ 0.50
Not more than 1 (claim 5)
≤ 0.50
Ti
≤ 0.50
Not more than 1 (par.[0055])
≤ 0.50
Ta
≤ 0.50
Not more than 2 (claim 5)
≤ 0.50
W
≤ 0.50
Not more than 10 (claim 5)
≤ 0.50
At least one of
0.0010≤ B ≤ 0.0100;
0.0010≤ Mg ≤ 0.0100;
0.0010≤ Ca ≤ 0.0100
Mg: 0.001
Mg: 0.001
Ni
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Regarding claims 4-5, PG’319 teaches the manufacturing process including melting and casting (par.[0075] of PG’319), forging, solution treatment (par.[0076] of PG’319), hot working and solid solution treatment (par.[0066] of PG’319), and further aging treatment (par.[0067]-[0070] of PG’319), which reads on all of the essential process steps including melting and casting process (1st step in claim 4); hot working (2nd step in claim 4); homogenized heat treatment (3rd step in claim 4); hot-working (4th step in claim 4), solution heat treatment (5th step in claim 4); and aging process (7th step in claim 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734