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 1-12 and 14-20 are pending. Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are presented for this examination. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claims 11 and 14 are amended.
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 10/30/2023 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Previous Rejections
112 2nd rejections of claims 11-20 are withdrawn in view of amendment of claim 11.
Art rejections based on Klekovkin are all withdrawn in view of amendment of claim 11.
However, art rejections based on Engstrom are maintained.
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) 11-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engstrom (WO03106079A1) in view of Ion_nitriding (NPL document: “Process Specification for Ion Nitriding”, published in 2000).
As for claims 11-12 and 14-19, it is noted instant claim 11 is amended to require (1)”where in a content of the Cr and Mo satisfied Equation 1”; and (2) where the mixed powder comprises 0.5-0.7% C, 0.5-0.7% lubricant and the remaining of the prealloy powder. Hence, scope of claim 11 is changed.
Engstrom discloses a method of making a sintered part by powder metallurgy, comprising the steps of:
(1)Preparing a pre-alloy steel powder comprising 1.3-1.7% Cr, 0.15-0.3% Mo, 0.09-0.2% Mn, and remaining of Fe and impurities of C, and O. (Claim 13) The pre-alloy steel powder is produced by subjecting ingot steel to water-atomizing method (Page 6 line 11), which meets instant claim 12. Hence, using upper and lower limit of Cr and Mo, value of left side equation (1) is calculated to be 1.585-3.08, which overlaps value of instant claim 11 amended feature (1).
Furthermore, 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.
Hence, based on the teaching of Engstrom, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, to select the amount of each element within the ranges disclosed by Engstrom in order to arrive at prealloy powder of claimed invention.
(2)Mixing the steel powder with graphite which is a carbon powder and lubricant. The amount of graphite is 0.55-1%wt (Page 10 line 25) and the amount of lubricant is up to 1% wt (Page 9 line 6). Hence, the mixed powder is expected to comprise 0.55-1% the carbon powder, up to 1% wt of lubricant as required by instant claim 11 amended feature (2), which overlaps amended 0.5-0.7% C and -.5-0.7% lubricant. 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.
Precipitation hardening element such as V 0.05-0.3% and not more than 0.1 Nb% supports instant claim 14 required 0.1-0.2% functional additive.
(3)Compacting the obtained mixture to form a green body, which meets claimed forming step
(4)Sintering the obtained green body at 1120 degree C for 30 minutes in a 90% nitrogen and 10% hydrogen (Page 14 line 10), which meets claimed sintering step and instant claim 17 sintering temperature, atmosphere and time. The sintered green body has density about 6.95 g/cm3. (Example 2) Hence, instant claim 15 is met.
The sintered green body mainly consists of lower bainite (Page 10 line 5) Hence, instant claim 16 is met.
(5)Cooling the sintered green body (Page 14 line 11) which meets instant claim 11 required post processing step.
Amount of C in the sintered green body is determined by the mixed graphite amount. Since graphite is added up to 1%, the sintered part is expected to have 1.3-1.7% Cr, 0.15-0.3% Mo, 0.09-0.2% Mn, up to 1% C and remaining of Fe and impurities. Hence, instant claim 11 sintered part compositions are met.
Engstrom differs from instant claims 11, 18-19 such that it does not disclose ion nitriding the post processed sintered part.
Ion_nitriding discloses ion nitriding is a surface hardening heat treatment that uses diffused nitrogen on final heat treated and machined alloy steel for extended wear life and a reduced fatigue failure rate.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply ion nitriding step as suggested by Ion_nitriding, after the post processing step of Engstrom for the benefits of extended wear life and a reduced fatigue failure rate.
The sintered green body treated in the ion nitriding is expected to maintain a bainite phase as required by instant claim 18.
Ion_nitriding explicitly discloses a typical case depth is 3-30 mils which is expected to be 76-762 microns, hence meeting instant claim 19 required 7 microns or more.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engstrom in view of Ion_nitriding as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lamim (NPL document “Plasma nitrided compound layers in sintered parts: Microstructures and wear mechanisms” published in 2021)
As for claim 20, Ion_nitriding discloses temperature of 750-1110 F which is equivalent to 398-598 degree C is carried out during ion nitriding step. Ion_nitriding does not disclose nitriding time of 3-5 hours.
Lamim discloses Plasma nitrided compound layers in sintered parts. Lamim explicitly discloses holding time to achieve thicker case depth can be reduced significantly by increasing the temperature. (Page 2 Col 2 lines 4-5) Table 1 discloses holding time of 120 minutes are well known in the art for temperature range of 550 degree C. That is, holding time and temperature are inversely related such that lowering heating temperature leads to longer holding time.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to prolong holding time from 2 hours to 3-5 hours by reducing nitriding temperature as suggested by Lamim, in the process of Engstrom in view of Ion_nitriding to arrive at same thickness.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 07/07/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant first argues that Klekovkin does not disclose or suggest amended equation (1), argument is moot since Klekovkin is withdrawn.
Applicant then argues that the identified Cr and Mo ranges and working examples relied upon in Engstrom do not teach the claimed Equation 1. Argument is not persuasive because
First, According to MPEP 2123 I A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) In the instant case, Engstrom teaches in claim 1 1.3-1.7%Cr and 0.15-0.3% Mo which both overlapping presently claimed content ranges of Cr and Mo. Hence, using upper and lower limit of Cr and Mo, value of left side equation (1) is calculated to be 1.585-3.08, which overlaps value of instant claim 11 amended >3 absent criticality of Equation (1). That is, applicant’s identified Cr and Mo ranges of Cr 1.35-1.65% and Mo 0.17-0.27% (claim 2) are not broad disclosure of Cr and Mo as claimed in claim 1 of Engstrom.
Second, also according to MPEP 2123 II, mere disclosed examples such as Example 3 of Engstrom with Cr 1.5% and Mo 0.2% do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure such as 1.3-1.7%Cr and 0.15-0.3% Mo because such mere disclosure does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the claimed composition range. In the instant case, nothing in Engstrom expressly criticize, discredit or discourage the overlapping ranges of Cr and Mo.
Third, because broad disclosure of Cr and Mo both overlaps claimed Cr and Mo, increase Mo to meet claimed Equation (1) as alleged by applicant is not necessary.
Fourth, Table 1 of instant application Comparative Examples 1-6 all having Equation 1 less than 3 leads to non-full bainite structure. In contrast, Engstrom explicitly disclose fully bainitic structure. (Page 9 line 28 of Engstrom) Hence, it is not readily apparent as to the criticality of Equation (1) on microstructure in view of Engstrom having fully bainitic structure.
Applicant is invited to submit criticality of Equation (1) on mechanical properties.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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