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 claim 1 is amended and claims 13-14 are new.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa et al. (JP 2009-293063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al. (Kinetic model of decarburization and denitrogenation in vacuum oxygen decarburization process for ferritic stainless steel).
In regard to claims 1 and 13-14, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses heat resistant ferritic steels having compositions relative to that of the instant invention as set forth below (Solution and [0052-0053]).
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063)
(mass percent)
Overlap
C
0.07 – 0.14
0.05 – 0.12
0.07 – 0.12
Si
0.15 – 0.35
0.2 – 0.5
0.2 – 0.35
Mn
0.30 – 0.55
0.3 – 0.6
0.3 – 0.55
Element
Instant Claim
(mass percent)
Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063)
(mass percent)
Overlap
P
0 – 0.025
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.02
S
0 – 0.003
0 – 0.005
0 – 0.003
Ni
0.15 – 0.35
0 – 0.5
0.15 – 0.35
Cr
8 – 9.7
8 – less than 12
8 – 9.7
Mo
0.20 – 0.60
0.1 – 1.1
0.2 – 0.6
W
1.5 – 2.3
1.5 – 3.5
1.5 – 2.3
V
0.16 – 0.25
0.15 – 0.25
0.16 – 0.25
Nb
0.02 – 0.12
0.03 – 0.08
0.03 – 0.08
B
0.001 – 0.005
0 – 0.015
0.001 – 0.005
N
0.01 – 0.08
0.005 – 0.07
0.01 – 0.07
Al
0 – 0.02
0 – 0.015
0 – 0.015
O
0 – 0.02
-
-
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
The Examiner notes that the amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, nickel, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, vanadium, niobium, boron, nitrogen, aluminum and oxygen disclosed by Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) overlap the amounts of the instant invention, which is prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to select the claimed amounts of carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, nickel, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, vanadium, niobium, boron, nitrogen, aluminum and oxygen from the amounts disclosed by Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) because Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) does not specify the presence of oxygen and therefore it would read on the claim. Alternatively, should it be deemed that the claim language requires the presence of oxygen, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) does not specify the oxygen content.
Xu et al. teaches wherein the oxygen content would have a great influence on the decarburization and denitrogenation rate (page 347, right column). Xu et al. further discloses wherein the initial oxygen content prior to the VOD process would be 0.02 weight percent (page 349, left column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to perform a VOD process, as disclosed by Xu et al., when making the ferritic steels, as disclosed by Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063), in order to remove any unwanted carbon and/or nitrogen as the oxygen content would a result effective variable in the decarburization/denitrogenation process, as disclosed by Xu et al. (page 347, right column and page 349, left column).
With respect to the recitation “wherein the chemical composition satisfies Formula (i) below:
-0.2 x C + 0.060 ≤ VER ≤ -0.1 x C + 0.160 …(i),
where the meaning of each symbol in Formula (i) is as follows:
C: C content in the steel (mass%)
VER: V content in precipitates obtained by extracted residue analysis (mass%)” in claim 1, it is indicated at [0084] of the specification that to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.150], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1050°C and to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.140], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1070°C with a time of treatment preferably 0.10 to 0.75 hours or 6 to 45 minutes. Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses substantially similar composition as set forth above in addition to normalizing processing for 10 minutes at 1050°C [0039]. Therefore, it would be expected that Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) would satisfy “-0.2 x C + 0.060 ≤ VER ≤ -0.1 x C + 0.140”. MPEP 2112.01 I.
In regard to claim 4, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses 0 to 0.05 mass percent neodymium [0053].
In regard to claims 5 and 10, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses 0 to 5 mass percent cobalt, which encompasses the range of the instant invention [0053].
Claims 2-3, 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa et al. (JP 2009-293063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al. Xu et al. (Kinetic model of decarburization and denitrogenation in vacuum oxygen decarburization process for ferritic stainless steel) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2,121,057).
In regard to claim 2, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al. discloses heat resistant ferritic steels as set forth above, but Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) alone or alternatively in view of Xu et al. does not specify 0 to 0.02 mass percent arsenic.
Smith (‘057) teaches that adding about 0.005 to 0.5 weight percent arsenic to steels containing 0.005 to 0.05 mass percent nitrogen exhibit a marked improvement in resistance to atmospheric and water corrosion as well as acid corrosion (page 1, left column, lines 50-60 and page 1, right column).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the instant invention to add 0.005 to 0.5 weight percent arsenic, as disclosed by Smith (‘057), to steel containing 0.005 or more nitrogen, as disclosed by Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al., in order to provide an improvement to atmospheric, water, and acid corrosion, as disclosed by Smith (‘057) (page 1, left column, lines 50-60 and page 1, right column).
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al., and Smith (‘057) discloses 0 to 0.02 mass percent phosphorus and 0.005 to 0.5 weight percent arsenic. As such, the combination would include an alloy having 0.02 mass percent phosphorus and 0.001 weight percent arsenic. 0.001 would be greater than 0.0005 and -2 x 0.02+ 0.06 would be 0.02 and therefore the combination of Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) alone, or alternatively in view of Xu et al. and Smith (‘057) would meet the limitations of claim 3.
In regard to claims 6-7, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses 0 to 0.05 mass percent neodymium [0053].
In regard to claims 8-9 and 11-12, Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses 0 to 5 mass percent cobalt, which encompasses the range of the instant invention [0053].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant primarily argues that Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed VER requirement and Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) does not measure VER, does not control VER based on the carbon content, and does not disclose or suggest controlling VER to not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.140] and for this reason this rejection is improper and should be withdrawn.
In response, the Examiner notes that VER: V content in precipitates obtained by extracted residue analysis (mass%)” in claim 1, it is indicated at [0084] of the specification that to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.150], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1050°C and to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.140], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1070°C with a time of treatment preferably 0.10 to 0.75 hours or 6 to 45 minutes. Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses substantially similar composition as set forth above in addition to normalizing processing for 10 minutes at 1050°C [0039]. Therefore, it would be expected that Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) would satisfy “-0.2 x C + 0.060 ≤ VER ≤ -0.1 x C + 0.140”. Additionally, Xu et al. teaches wherein the oxygen content would have a great influence on the decarburization and denitrogenation rate (page 347, right column). Xu et al. further discloses wherein the initial oxygen content prior to the VOD process would be 0.02 weight percent (page 349, left column).
Second, the Applicant primarily argues that Smith (‘057) relates to low alloy steel or iron alloys and does not disclose chromium and therefore the chemical composition and technical field of Smith (‘057) are entirely different from those of the present invention, which is directed to a heat-resistant ferritic steel containing 8.0 to 9.7% Cr and also different from Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063), which is directed to a high-Cr heat resistant ferritic steel containing 8.0 to 12 weight percent chromium and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Smith (‘057) and Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063).
In response, the Examiner notes that those having ordinary skill in the art capable of making steels with chromium would also be capable of making steels without chromium as the field of endeavor is steel-making and in order to have the knowledge to make the steels of Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) would also require the knowledge obtained in Smith (‘057) and while the specific chemical composition of the steel in Smith (‘057) may be different, the knowledge gleaned in Smith (‘057) would have been readily available at the time of Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063).
Third, the Applicant primarily argues that VER is not a variable independent of the manufacturing conditions and is a characteristic resulting from the chemical composition and manufacturing conditions, particularly the normalizing and tempering conditions and when the manufacturing conditions are appropriately controlled, VER falls within the claimed range and when one or more manufacturing conditions such as the normalizing temperature, normalizing time, tempering temperature and/or tempering time are inappropriate, VER falls outside the claimed range.
In response, the Examiner has correlated the pertinent composition/processing conditions of Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) and Xu et al. with that of the instant invention and there does not appear to be large difference. However, Applicant’s arguments appear to be mainly directed to a process where the instant claims are to a composition. VER: V content in precipitates obtained by extracted residue analysis (mass%)” in claim 1, it is indicated at [0084] of the specification that to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.150], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1050°C and to keep VER not more than [-0.1 x C + 0.140], the normalizing temperature is preferably set to higher than 1070°C with a time of treatment preferably 0.10 to 0.75 hours or 6 to 45 minutes. Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) discloses substantially similar composition as set forth above in addition to normalizing processing for 10 minutes at 1050°C [0039]. Therefore, it would be expected that Yoshizawa et al. (JP ‘063) would satisfy “-0.2 x C + 0.060 ≤ VER ≤ -0.1 x C + 0.140”. MPEP 2112.01 I.
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 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