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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10 and 15-20) in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes that new claims 21-24 are substantially identical in scope to now-cancelled claimed 11-14, and as such, for the purposes of restriction, will be treated in the same manner as claims 11-14.
Newly submitted claims 21-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as making a kitchen utensil.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s response and amendment filed 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Pending: claims 1-10 and 15-24
New: claims 21-24
Cancelled: claims 11-14
Withdrawn: claims 21-24
Under examination: claims 1-10 and 15-20
Rejected: claims 1-10 and 15-20
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanki et al. (US 20250236939 A1; available as prior art under 102(a)(2)).
Regarding claim 1, Kanki teaches a stainless steel material which has the following composition which overlaps with the claimed ranges:
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]
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 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.).
Claims 10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayyouk et al. (WO 2022125792A1) in view of Kanki et al. (US 20250236939 A1; available as prior art under 102(a)(2)).
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]
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 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]
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights