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 Claims
Claims 8-10 are amended in view of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 11/21/2023. Therefore, claims 1-16 are currently under examination.
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 3-5, 8 and 10-16 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the contents of impurity elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the contents of the element Al and element O" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the contents of the element V, element C and element N" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “inclusions in the steel for bolts”. However, neither instant claim nor the specification provided clear scope or definition for the claimed inclusions. It cannot be determined what materials are covered by the claimed inclusions. Therefore, the instant claim 8 is vague and indefinite.
Claim 10 recites “high-speed wire rolling”. the term “high-speed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although the instant specification provides some embodiments with certain rolling speeds, there is no clear definition to define the broadest scope for the claimed “high-speed” in wire rolling.
Additionally, claim 10 recites the limitation "the holding temperature" in line 9 and “the holding time” in line 10, “the holding” in line 11. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 11-16 are also rejection since they depend on vague and indefinite claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resiak US 2010/0135745 (Resiak).
Resiak teaches a steel for bolts[0001] having a chemical composition that applies to the instant claim 1 as follows:
Steel composition
Claim 1 (mass %)
Resiak (wt%, i.e. mass%) (abstract, [0056])
C
0.37-0.45
0.3-0.5
Si
0.01-0.08
0.05-0.20
Mn
0.45-0.80
0.1-1.0
Cr
0.90-1.30
0.4-2.0
Mo
0.20-0.45
0.20-0.45
Ni
0.10-0.30
0.04-0.8
V
0.15-0.30
0.03-0.30
Al
0.015-0.035
≤0.05
Balance Fe & inevitable impurities
Balance Fe & inevitable impurities
Balance Fe & inevitable impurities
Cu
≤ 0.05
≤ 0.15
P
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.015
S
≤ 0.10
≤ 0.015
O
≤ 0.001
-
N
≤ 0.005
≤ 0.015
Regarding claim 1, the steel composition as taught by Resiak overlap the claimed steel composition. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The select claimed steel composition from the steel composition of Resiak would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since Resiak teach the same utilities in its steel composition.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resiak US 2010/0135745 (Resiak), and further in view of Yao et al. US 2021/0164078 A1(Yao).
The teachings of Resiak are discussed in section 6 above. However, Resiak does not explicitly teach the claimed steel having a microstructure comprising tempered sorbite.
Yao teaches a method to manufacture a steel comprising the flowing steps of smelting molten steel, continuous casting, rough rolling, high-speed rolling, Stelmor controlled cooling, drawing, quenching and tempering treatment[0035].
Regarding claim 6, Yao further teaches that its method produces a steel having a microstructure comprising tempered sorbite(abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the process steps in the method of Yao into the process of making the steel product of Resiak in order to produce a steel product having tempered sorbite microstructure as taught by Yao.
Regrading claim 8, Yao further teaches that the smelting and continuous casting in the process of Yao are carried out under conditions that leads on small inclusions having a size of ≤ 30µm[0036]. Therefore, the process of Resiak in view of Yao would have formed a steel having inclusion of ≤ 30µm in size, which reads on the claimed inclusion size as recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Yao further teaches, in Table 3, that the resulting steel has tensile strengths in a range of 1905-2130MPa, and a fatigue life in a range of 57-110x104 cycles, which is reads on the claimed tensile strength of ≥ 1200MPa and the fatigue life ≥ 75000 times. Since Resiak in view of Yao teaches a steel composition that is significantly similar to the claimed steel composition, and is produced by a method that has significantly similar steps as claimed process, and results in properties such as tensile strength and fatigue life that are the same as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same other properties in the steel produced by the method of Resiak in view of Yao, such as the claimed yield-to-tensile ratio, the laimed tensil strength loss and the claimed bolt tightening and twisting fluctuation.
Regarding claim 7, since Resiak in view of Yao teaches a steel composition that is significantly similar to the claimed steel composition, and is produced by a method that has significantly similar steps as claimed process, and results in properties such as tensile strength and fatigue life that are the same as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the same other properties in the steel produced by the method of Resiak in view of Yao, such as the claimed amounts of vanadium carbonitride precipitate having a size of 5-50nm in the microstructure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Claims 3-5 and 10-16 are free of prior art rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 2-5: The closest prior art Resiak, as discussed in section 7 above, teaches a steel composition that additionally comprises 0.02-0.45 wt% of Nb, 0.02-0.05 wt% Ti and 0.003-0.005 wt% of B, which are excluded by the closed-ended transitional phrase “consisting of” used to limit the claimed steel composition as recited in instant claim 2.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 10-16: The closest prior art Resiak, either alone or in view of Yao, does not teach a process wherein an additional spheroidizing annealing step is incorporated at 760-790°C for a holding time of 4-12 hours.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOIS L ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1248. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45.
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 at 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 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.
LOIS ZHENG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/LOIS L ZHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights