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 .
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.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2013/0243640 A1; hereinafter “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a railway wheel (Fig. 1), comprising: a rim part (“Rim” in Fig. 1), a hub part (“hub” in Fig. 1) having a through hole (unlabeled hole that receives “Axle” as shown in Fig. 1), and a web part (“Web” in Fig. 1) which is disposed between the rim part and the hub part (Fig. 1), and is connected to the rim part and the hub part (Fig. 1), wherein a chemical composition of the railway wheel consists of, in mass%, C: 0.60 to 0.80%, Si: 1.00% or less, Mn: 0.10 to 1.50%, P: 0.050% or less, S: 0.030% or less, N: 0.0200% or less, Al: 0 to 0.500%, Cu: 0 to 0.50%, Ni: 0 to 0.50%, Cr: 0 to 0.50%, V: 0 to 0.12%, Ti: 0 to 0.010%, Mo: 0 to 0.20%, and Nb: 0 to 0.050%, with the balance being Fe and impurities (Abstract; paragraphs [0092-0116]; Steels 1-18 and 20 in Table 1), and wherein Yamamoto implicitly discloses in a cross section of the hub part obtained when, in a central axis direction of the through hole, the hub part is cut along a plane that includes the central axis, when regions of 15 mm × 15 mm defined by a plurality of axial line segments which are parallel to the central axis and which are arranged at a pitch of 15 mm in a radial direction of the railway wheel from an inner peripheral surface of the through hole, and by a plurality of radial line segments which are perpendicular to the central axis and which are arranged at a pitch of 15 mm in the central axis direction from a surface of the hub part that is a surface in which an opening of the through hole is formed are defined as rectangular regions (evident from at least Figs. 1 and 15, and paragraph [0129] that the hub part can be defined by the claimed rectangular regions).
Although Yamamoto fails to expressly disclose an average C concentration in each rectangular region in the cross section of the hub part is less than 0.90% by mass, Yamamoto expressly teaches “if the C content exceeds 0.84%, hypereutectoid cementite is formed in the hub part of the wheel, so that the toughness and the fatigue life are decreased extremely, which is unfavorable in terms of safety” (paragraph [0093]).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the railway wheel of Yamamoto by ensuring, via well-known means for controlling carbon segregation, that each rectangular region in the cross section of the hub part has an average C concentration less than 0.90% by mass with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing the toughness and the fatigue life of the hub part from decreasing extremely.
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto further discloses the railway wheel containing one or more elements selected from the group consisting of: Al: 0.001 to 0.500%, Cu: 0.01 to 0.50%, Ni: 0.01 to 0.50%, Cr: 0.01 to 0.50%, V: 0.01 to 0.12%, Ti: 0.001 to 0.010%, Mo: 0.01 to 0.20%, and Nb: 0.010 to 0.050% (Abstract; paragraphs [0092-0116]; Steels 1-18 and 20 in Table 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Even if a railway wheel produced from the steel of Yamamoto has a C concentration of 0.84% or less overall, the hub part could locally have a C concentration of 0.90% or more in some cases”, note Yamamoto expressly teaches that the C concentration should not exceed 0.84% in the hub part of the wheel to prevent the formation of hypereutectoid cementite in the hub part of the wheel (paragraph [0093]). There are numerous well-known means (e.g., specific heat treatment conditions with optimized cooling rates or profiles, continuous casting and rolling techniques to ensure a more consistent flow of molten steel, electromagnetic stirring during solidification, etc…) in the art for controlling carbon segregation and providing microstructural uniformity of the carbon concentration in steel products to ensure desired material properties of the steel. It is well within the ability of one having ordinary skill in the art to employ such means to the railway wheel of Yamamoto so that each rectangular region in the cross section of the hub part has an average C concentration less than 0.90% by mass to prevent the formation of hypereutectoid cementite in the hub part and the decrease of toughness and the fatigue life of the hub part.
In response to Applicant’s comment that possible variations in carbon concentration in a steel product “was revealed for the first time by the present inventors”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the presence of carbon segregation is notoriously well-known in the art as evidenced by the fact that numerous means for controlling (i.e., minimizing or preventing) such carbon segregation have been developed over the years to ensure consistent desired material properties, fewer defects and reliable performance of the steel. For example, note Belchior (US 2017/0204487 A1) teaches a “normalizing” thermal treatment for minimizing carbon segregation in a steel alloy railway component (paragraph [0095]); Chen et al. (CN 103028713 A; hereinafter “Chen”) teaches a continuous casting method to reduce carbon segregation such that the segregation coefficient is controlled at 0.95 to 1.05 (paragraphs [0005] and [0050]); and Zhu et al. (CN 101648263 A; hereinafter “Zhu”) teaches a continuous casting technique where the carbon segregation index is controlled between 0.96 and 1.05 (Abstract).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “there is no motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the railway wheel produced from the steel of Yamamoto to adjust the average C concentration in each rectangular region in the cross section of the hub part to be less than 0.90% by mass”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and again notes that Yamamoto expressly teaches the desirability to have the C concentration to be less than 0.84% in the hub part to prevent the formation of hypereutectoid cementite in the hub part and the decrease in toughness and fatigue life (note paragraph [0093], which states, in part “if the C content exceeds 0.84%, hypereutectoid cementite is formed in the hub part of the wheel, so that the toughness and the fatigue life are decreased extremely, which is unfavorable in terms of safety”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights