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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending wherein claims 1-14 are currently under examination. The restriction requirement mailed on February 25, 2026 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “i.e.” which is synonymous with "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the three types of gases" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the three types of gases" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: amendment to claim 5 to make this two types of gas may render claim 5 and claim 6 substantial duplicates.
Examiner Interpretation
The Examiner considers the recitation that the limitations after “i.e.” to be limitations that are not required and the claim only requires a nitriding process
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michalski et al. (Nitriding without the compound layer and with continuous in-process variation of the nitriding potential).
In regard to claim 1, Michalski et al. discloses three-stage nitriding of 38HMJ steel (page 50).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 1, Paulus et al. (‘326) discloses nitriding components of fuel injection systems made of steel comprising nitriding at a temperature between 520 and 570°C at a first high nitriding potential between 1 and 10 and then nitriding at a temperature between 520 and 570°C at a second lower nitriding potential between 0.2 and 0.4 [0036-0040]. However, Paulus et al. (‘326) fails to specify three nitriding steps where the nitriding potential is between 0.10 to 1 for the first nitriding step; the nitriding potential for the second step is between 0.3 to 10 for the second nitriding; and the nitriding potential for the third step is between 0.26 to 0.60 for the third step of nitriding wherein the nitriding potential for the second step is higher than the first step and the nitriding potential for the third step is lower than the second step. Likewise, Michalski et al. teaches a continued decrease in nitriding potential whereas claim 1 has an lowering of nitriding potential and then an increase in nitriding potential (page 50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Michalski, Jerzy, et al. "Nitriding without the compound layer and with continuous in-process variation of the nitriding potential." International Journal of Microstructure and Materials Properties 2.1 (2007): 45-53.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessee Roe whose telephone number is (571)272-5938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30 am to 4 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/JESSEE R ROE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights