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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s response and amendment filed 07/14/2026 has been entered.
New: claims 25-28
Pending: claims 1-10, 15-20, and 25-28
Cancelled: claims 11-14 and 21-24
Under examination: claims 1-10, 15-20, and 25-28
Rejected: claims 1-10, 15-20, and 25
Objected to: claims 26-27
Allowed: claim 28
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed [date] have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments against Kanki and Bayyouk (see pages 7-10) of arguments are not found persuasive; obviousness of the claimed composition, which notably is silent regarding any other features, is based on whether ranges overlap. In the instant case, the ranges for Fe, Ni, Cr, Mn, Mo, Cu, Ti, Co, V, and Nb+Ta all overlap; Kanki teaches a lower bound of each of Ca and Mg of 0.0003% and 0.0003% respectively (closed-ended). The claimed range for Ca and Mg are also 0.0003% and 0.0003% (open-ended) respectively. Although these values do not technically overlap, they are nonetheless patentably indistinguishable under § 103. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02). "It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) (MPEP 2144.05 III. A.).
Regarding modification of Bayyouk with Kanki, the strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination (MPEP 2144 II.). In the instant case, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute material of Bayyouk with the stainless steel of Kanki, as doing so would result in an improved lifespan for a hydraulic pump/pump fluid end assembly with high strength and high corrosion resistance (Kanki, [0010]).
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 in order 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.
Claims 1-9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanki et al. (US 20250236939 A1; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Kanki teaches a stainless steel material which has the following composition:
Element
Instant claim 1(wt. %)
Kanki(wt. %)
Location in reference
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0013]-[0036]
Ni
3.5-4.5
2.00-7.50
[0013]-[0036]
Cr
12-13.5
10.00-14.00
[0013]-[0036]
Mn
0.5-1.5
0-1.50
[0013]-[0036]
Mo
0-0.7
0.01-4.50
[0013]-[0036]
Cu
0-0.5
0-3.50
[0013]-[0036]
Ti
0.005-0.05
0-0.300
[0013]-[0036]
Co
0.04-0.2
0.010-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
V
0.03-0.2
0.01-1.00
[0013]-[0036]
Nb+Ta
0-0.1
0-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
Ca
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
Mg
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
With regard to the ranges of Fe through “Nb+Ta”, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, with regard to the Ca and Mg, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
"It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) (MPEP 2144.05 III. A.).
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
Regarding claims 2-9, Kanki teaches overlapping ranges [0013]-[0036]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 25, Kanki teaches Mo and W in quantities of:
Mo: 0.01-4.50% [0021]
W: 0-2.00% [0033]
Therefore the combined range is 0.01-6.50%, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Claims 10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayyouk et al. (WO 2022125792A1; of record) in view of Kanki et al. (US 20250236939 A1; of record).
Regarding claim 10, Bayyouk teaches steel pump components such as a fluid end assembly of a hydraulic fracturing pump (page 1, lines 5-10).
Bayyouk further teaches that despite being expensive, stainless steel is an advantageous material for hydraulic pump components such as a fluid end assembly of a hydraulic pump (page 2, lines 1-9). As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel as a pump material, because stainless steel has a longer lifespan compared to other materials/steels.
However, Bayyouk is silent regarding the composition of the stainless steel.
Kanki teaches a stainless steel material which has the following composition which overlaps with the claimed ranges:
Element
Instant
claim 10(wt. %)
Kanki(wt. %)
Location in reference
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0013]-[0036]
Ni
3.5-4.5
2.00-7.50
[0013]-[0036]
Cr
12-13.5
10.00-14.00
[0013]-[0036]
Mn
0.5-1.5
0-1.50
[0013]-[0036]
Mo
0-0.7
0.01-4.50
[0013]-[0036]
Cu
0-0.5
0-3.50
[0013]-[0036]
Ti
0.005-0.05
0-0.300
[0013]-[0036]
Co
0.04-0.2
0.010-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
V
0.03-0.2
0.01-1.00
[0013]-[0036]
Nb+Ta
0-0.1
0-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
Ca
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
Mg
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
With regard to the ranges of Fe through “Nb+Ta”, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, with regard to the Ca and Mg, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
"It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree."); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675 (CCPA 1932) (MPEP 2144.05 III. A.).
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected (MPEP 716.02).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute material of Bayyouk with the stainless steel of Kanki, as doing so would result in an improved lifespan for a hydraulic pump/pump fluid end assembly with high strength and high corrosion resistance (Kanki, [0010]).
Regarding claim 15, Bayyouk teaches steel pump components such as a fluid end assembly of a hydraulic fracturing pump (page 1, lines 5-10).
Bayyouk further teaches that despite being expensive, stainless steel is an advantageous material for hydraulic pump components such as a fluid end assembly of a hydraulic pump (page 2, lines 1-9). As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stainless steel as a pump material, because stainless steel has a longer lifespan compared to other materials/steels.
However, Bayyouk is silent regarding the composition of the stainless steel.
Kanki teaches a stainless steel material which has the following composition which overlaps with the claimed ranges:
Element
Instant claim 15(wt. %)
Kanki(wt. %)
Location in reference
Fe
-
Balance
[0013]-[0036]
Ni
3.5-4.5
2.00-7.50
[0013]-[0036]
Cr
12-13.5
10.00-14.00
[0013]-[0036]
Ti
0.005-0.05
0-0.300
[0013]-[0036]
Co
0.04-0.2
0.010-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
V
0.03-0.2
0.01-1.00
[0013]-[0036]
Nb+Ta
0-0.1
0-0.500
[0013]-[0036]
Ca
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
Mg
<0.0003
0.0003-0.0050
[0013]-[0036]
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute material of Bayyouk with the stainless steel of Kanki, as doing so would result in an improved lifespan for a hydraulic pump/pump fluid end assembly with high strength and high corrosion resistance (Kanki, [0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Bayyouk teaches that the component in some embodiments, the present disclosure relates to a hydraulic fracturing pump comprising a fluid end assembly, the fluid end assembly including a cylinder body configured to receive a respective plunger from a power end assembly; a suction 10 bore configured to house a valve body, a valve seat, and a spring; and a spring retainer.
Regarding claims 17-19, Bayyouk and Kanki teach the fluid end of claim 15 above, but Bayyouk is silent regarding the compositional ranges.
However, Kanki teaches overlapping ranges and/or close, but not overlapping ranges [0013]-[0036]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 20, Bayyouk teaches that J factor is less than about 300 (page 6, lines 20-25), which is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05 I.). The J-factor formula is based on the Mn, Si, and P and Sn contents, which all overlap. As such, in the alternative, the J-factor overlaps due to the overlapping Mn, Si, and P contents of Kanki.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 28 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to dependent claims 26-27, the prior art does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of the claim, with particular attention to the features of the claimed exclusion of Ca (claim 26) or Mg (claim 27). The closest prior art reference is Kanki as seen in the rejections above; however, Kanki requires Ca and Mg [0013]-[0036].
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to independent claim 28, the prior art does not anticipate or reasonably render obvious the cumulative limitations of the claim, with particular attention to the features of the closed-ended (“consisting of”) language in addition to the single-value compositional ranges. The closest prior art reference is Kanki as seen in the rejections above; however, Kanki requires Ca and Mg [0013]-[0036].
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 Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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 Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
