DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 5-7 and 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 and 8-10 in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 2, 3, 5A-5D, and 7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are as originally filed and Claims 5-7 and 11-17 are withdrawn.
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 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.
The following table will be used for the rejections under this statute:
% by mass
Claim 1
CN 102605287
JP 5432548
CN 111094609
CN 108118240
C
0.021 - 0.059
0.03 - 0.10
0.03 - 0.1
0.030 - 0.100
0.015 - 0.085
Si
0.11 - 0.29
0.16 - 0.62
0 - 0.5
0.01 - 0.50
0.10 - 0.50
Mn
1.25 - 1.55
1.00 - 2.20
1.0 - 2.0
0.50 - 2.50
0.05 - 2.5
Nb
not claimed
0.01 - 0.062
0.02 - 0.06
0.0001 - 0.20
0 - 0.15
Ti
≤ 0.030
0.008 - 0.03
0.003 - 0.030
0 - 0.15
Nb + Ti
0.02 - 0.05
0.01 - 0.092
0.028 - 0.069
0.0031 - 0.230
0 - 0.30
S
≤ 0.0010
≤ 0.010
> 0 to 0.01%
≤ 0.005
≤ 0.008
Nb/Ti
1 - 3
up to 2.07
0.930 - 8.625
0.0033 - 66.7
reads on range
Zr
0.01 - 0.02
0.0015 - 0.020
> 0 to 0.1
0 - 0.050
≤ 0.25
Ti/Zr
2 - 4
0 - 20
≤ 0.435
≤ 0.062
reads on range
B
not claimed
0
0 - 0.0005
0.0003 - 0.003
≤ 0.0025
Cr
not claimed
0.12 - 0.65
≤ 2.0
0 - 1.00
0.005 - 0.30
Mo
not claimed
0.06 - 0.32
> 0 to 0.5
0 - 1.00
0.005 - 0.50
V
not claimed
0.015 - 0.050
> 0 to 0.10
0 - 0.10
≤ 0.15
Ni
not claimed
0.12 - 0.38
> 0 to 2.0
0 - 1.00
0.005 - 0.50
Cu
not claimed
0.012 - 0.65
> 0 to 2.0
0 - 1.00
0.005 - 0.50
Fe +
balance
balance
balance
balance
balance
Ceq
≤ 0.39
min 0.244
min 0.197
0.30 ~ 0.53
min 0.161
max 0.74
max 1.220
max 0.758
Pcm
≤ 0.17
min 0.10
min 0.08
0.100 - 0.165
min 0.157
max 0.24
max 0.48
max 0.336
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102605287 A and as evidenced by CN 111094609 A, both based on the machine translations.
CN 102605287 A (CN ‘287) teaches a steel with the composition listed above in the table with respect to Claim 1. The composition is in [0027-0040]. The maximum Pcm is from [0014]. The steel can be used as an ocean platform, pipeline, and large-scale bridges [0065], which reads on the property of “excellent neutral aqueous medium corrosion resistance.” Regarding the calculations for Ceq and Pcm, CN 111094609 A (CN ‘609) teaches the formulas in [0022] and [0023], respectively. Regarding overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8, the steel is used as an ocean platform, which reads on marine engineering and ship engineering, bridges, and pipelines [0065].
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5432548 B based on the machine translation of family document JP 2010-202938 A as evidenced by CN ‘609.
JP 5432548 B (JP ‘548) teaches a steel plate for ships and bridges [0001] with the composition listed above in the table with respect to Claim 1. The composition is in [0023-0041]. CN ‘609 teaches the formulas in [0022] and [0023], respectively. Regarding overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The composition of JP ‘548 reads on the property of “excellent neutral aqueous medium corrosion resistance.”
Regarding Claim 8, JP ‘548 teaches the steel is used as structural materials for ships and bridges [0001] for the hull [0003].
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘609.
CN ‘609 teaches steel pipes and steel plates [0002] with the composition listed above in the table with respect to Claim 1. The composition, Ceq, and Pcm are in [0021-0023]. Regarding overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The composition CN ‘609 reads on the property of “excellent neutral aqueous medium corrosion resistance.”
Regarding Claim 8, CN ‘609 teaches using the steel for pipelines [0288] in cold and deep waters such as the Arctic Circle [0004].
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108118240 A based on the machine translation and evidenced by CN ‘609.
CN 108118240 A (CN ‘240) teaches a corrosion-resistant steel plate for the bottom plate of a crude oil tanker [0002] with the composition listed above in the table with respect to Claim 1. Regarding the calculations for Ceq and Pcm, CN ‘609 teaches the formulas in [0022] and [0023], respectively. Regarding overlapping ranges, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, the area ratio of ferrite is 70-95%, and the remainder is pearlite [0019], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 3, CN ‘240 does not teach the density of corrosion-active inclusions. as recited. CN ‘240 teaches controlling the content and morphology of inclusions to prevent direct corrosion reactions [0008] by reducing other types of inclusions [0016] and controlling Mn content [0024].
Regarding Claims 4, 9, and 10, CN ‘240 does not teach the saturation current density of ≤ 7.0 mA at a static electrode potential E = -300 mV.
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In this case, CN ‘240 teaches substantially the same composition and corrosion resistance properties. Therefore, CN ‘240 would read on the claimed properties recited in Claims 3 and 4.
Regarding Claim 8, CN ‘240 teaches using the steel for crude oil carbo tankers at sea [0004] and the tanker hull [0005], which reads on marine or ship engineering.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP ‘548 teaches 30-85% ferrite but does not teach pearlite. The other microstructures include pseudopolygonal ferrites, lath-like bainite, ferrite, martensite, and cementite [0020]. CN ‘609 teaches 0-50% polygonal ferrite [0131] and a balance of bainite or acicular ferrite [0142]. CN 108677096 A teaches a steel plate for strategic petroleum storage tanks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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 D. Hendricks can be reached at (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 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights