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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/16/24 and 5/29/26 (2) have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 5/29/26 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 11-19 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villa et al. (US 20240271239 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Villa teaches that “the present disclosure relates to a process for the manufacture of a steel component comprising a fine-grained martensite structure component” (which reads upon “a method of manufacturing a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Villa teaches that “one of the practical examples of the present disclosure may be the processing of bearing components” (which reads upon “a component of a rolling-element bearing comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0034]). Villa teaches that “the initial component may be a steel component having a composition” (which reads upon “providing a steel body having”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0057]). Villa teaches “a composition comprising 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % N; 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % C; and 4.5 wt % to 30 wt % Cr” (which reads upon “a carbon content of less than 0.3 weight-%, a chromium content of greater than 8.0 weight-%, and a nitrogen content of less than 0.1 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0060]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Villa teaches that “because nitrogen has a low solubility in molten iron, it is challenging to produce martensitic steels with a significant nitrogen content, for example greater than 0.1% by weight” (paragraph [0004]). Villa teaches that “another procedure for manufacturing high-nitrogen martensitic steels is adding of nitrogen to conventionally manufactured, low nitrogen, ferritic/martensitic steel components in the solid state by solution nitriding (SN)” (paragraph [0006]). Villa teaches that “a challenge associated with SN is the coarsening of the microstructure as a consequence of, for example, long-time exposure of the material at a high temperature” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “coarsening of the microstructure deteriorates the mechanical properties and hence the performance of these components in service” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “with the present disclosure, a steel component can be processed such that a fine-grained hard microstructure of both the nitrogen-affected case and the bulk steel material can be obtained, and that the resulting fine-grained microstructure has several benefits over the coarse-grained structure, such as improved strength and ductility” (paragraph [0011]). Villa teaches “one of the practical examples of the present disclosure may be the processing of bearing components, where the invention leads to surface properties and a microstructure similar to that of the expensive SAE AMS 5898 steel at the cost of a conventional low-nitrogen martensitic product” (paragraph [0034]). Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (which reads upon “solution nitriding the steel body at a temperature of 1050°C to 1190°C for 1 h to 24 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (which reads upon “after the solution nitriding, performing an intermediate tempering at a temperature of 600°C to 1000°C for 1 h to 6 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (which reads upon “after the intermediate tempering process, performing a reaustenitizing annealing at a temperature of 1000°C to 1275°C for 0.1 h to 2.5 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “this step iii) can be regarded as an isothermal heat treatment step or refinement step, which may be necessary to refine the microstructure of steels containing a large fraction of carbon and nitrogen, and that introduction of the isothermal step may take place between hardening processes such as between nitriding and austenisation” (which reads upon “to reduce austenite grain sizes in the steel body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches “a composition comprising 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % N; 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % C; and 4.5 wt % to 30 wt % Cr” (paragraph [0060]). Villa teaches that “the at least one alloying element can be one or more selected from Si, Mo, Mn, Nb, V, Ta, Ti, Ni, Cu and Co” (paragraph [0102]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, Villa teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute in the other heating stages. All heating in Villa is presumed to be isothermal.
Regarding claim 14, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute in the other heating stages. All heating in Villa is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 15, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claims 16-17, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “after SN, isothermal holding followed by hardening was repeated twice and finalized with cryogenic treatment and two tempering cycles” (paragraph [0131]; cryogenic reads on a low-temperature treatment is carried out at a temperature from -40°C to -196°C). Villa teaches that “FIG. 18 shows the thermal cycle implemented in example 7” (paragraph [0131]; FIG. 18 shows the cryogenic treatment was 6 hours and the tempering was about 300 °C for about 5 hours).
Regarding claim 18, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “FIG. 1 b shows a schematic representation of one embodiment of thermal cycles applied according to any of the processes of the presently disclosed invention” (paragraph [0109]). Villa FIG. 1 b shows the claimed quenching.
Regarding claim 19, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute in the other heating stages. All heating in Villa is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “refrigeration at −80° ° C. for 8 hours in dry ice; and double tempering 2×2 hours at 250° C” (paragraph [00132]). Villa teaches that “FIG. 1 b shows a schematic representation of one embodiment of thermal cycles applied according to any of the processes of the presently disclosed invention” (paragraph [0109]). Villa FIG. 1 b shows the claimed quenching.
Regarding claim 23, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, Villa teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 24, Villa teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “the sample was an FE8 test ring that was heat-treated in an industrial furnace optimized for SN” (paragraph [0126]; bearing ring reads on raceway element).
Regarding claim 25, Villa teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above. Villa teaches “a composition comprising 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % N; 0.02 wt % to 3 wt % C; and 4.5 wt % to 30 wt % Cr” (paragraph [0060]). Villa teaches that “the at least one alloying element can be one or more selected from Si, Mo, Mn, Nb, V, Ta, Ti, Ni, Cu and Co” (paragraph [0102]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, Villa teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 26, Villa teaches the method of claim 25 as stated above. Villa teaches that “the sample was an FE8 test ring that was heat-treated in an industrial furnace optimized for SN” (paragraph [0126]; bearing ring reads on raceway element).
Regarding claim 27, Villa teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, Villa teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 28, Villa teaches the method of claim 27 as stated above. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Claims 11-19 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerrigan et al. (US 20200010940 A1), in view of Villa et al. (US 20240271239 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kerrigan teaches that “the present invention relates to a novel steel alloy, a method of forming a bearing component and a bearing comprising such a component” (which reads upon “a method of manufacturing a component of a rolling-element bearing comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Kerrigan teaches “a steel alloy comprising” (paragraph [0011]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.05 to 0.25 wt. % carbon” (which reads upon “providing a steel body having a carbon content of less than 0.3 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Kerrigan teaches “from 10 to 14 wt. % chromium” (which reads upon “a chromium content of greater than 8.0 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0 to 250 ppm nitrogen” (which reads upon “a nitrogen content of less than 0.1 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0024]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Kerrigan teaches that “the step of case-hardening may be conducted, for example, by diffusing carbon (carburization), nitrogen (nitriding), carbon and nitrogen (carbonitriding) and/or boron (boriding) into the outer layer of the steel at an elevated temperature” (which reads upon “solution nitriding the steel body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0089]). Kerrigan teaches that “clean bearing components may be heated in air at 875 to 1050° C. for 1 hour, followed by air cooling” (which reads upon “at a temperature of 1050°C to 1190°C for 1 h to 24 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [00]). Kerrigan teaches that “after case-carburizing, or carbonitriding, or the combination of both, the bearing components are typically hardened and tempered” (which reads upon “after the solution nitriding, performing an intermediate tempering”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0095]). Kerrigan teaches that “after the first temper, the parts may be deep-frozen at near liquid nitrogen temperature then re-tempered” (paragraph [0095]). Kerrigan teaches that “tempering can be double or, if necessary, even triple-tempering or more, with sub-zero treatments in-between the temper steps” (which reads upon “”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0096]). Kerrigan teaches that “heat treatment consists of authentication at, for example, about 1100° C., followed by an oil or gas quench” (which reads upon “after the intermediate tempering process, performing a reaustenitizing annealing at a temperature of 1000°C to 1275°C”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0096]; “authentication” is a typo/mistranslation for austenitation, see paragraph [0056] of equivalent EP3 594 375B1). Kerrigan teaches that “again, such treatments are conventional in the art” (paragraph [0095]).
Kerrigan is silent regarding some of the details of the conventional heat treatments, such as performing an intermediate tempering at a temperature of 600°C to 1000°C for 1 h to 6 h to reduce austenite grain sizes in the steel body, and performing the reaustenitizing for 0.1 h to 2.5 h.
Villa is similarly concerned with a process for the manufacture of a steel component comprising a fine-grained martensite structure component (paragraph [0002]). Villa teaches that “because nitrogen has a low solubility in molten iron, it is challenging to produce martensitic steels with a significant nitrogen content, for example greater than 0.1% by weight” (paragraph [0004]). Villa teaches that “another procedure for manufacturing high-nitrogen martensitic steels is adding of nitrogen to conventionally manufactured, low nitrogen, ferritic/martensitic steel components in the solid state by solution nitriding (SN)” (paragraph [0006]). Villa teaches that “a challenge associated with SN is the coarsening of the microstructure as a consequence of, for example, long-time exposure of the material at a high temperature” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “coarsening of the microstructure deteriorates the mechanical properties and hence the performance of these components in service” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “with the present disclosure, a steel component can be processed such that a fine-grained hard microstructure of both the nitrogen-affected case and the bulk steel material can be obtained, and that the resulting fine-grained microstructure has several benefits over the coarse-grained structure, such as improved strength and ductility” (paragraph [0011]). Villa teaches “one of the practical examples of the present disclosure may be the processing of bearing components, where the invention leads to surface properties and a microstructure similar to that of the expensive SAE AMS 5898 steel at the cost of a conventional low-nitrogen martensitic product” (paragraph [0034]). Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (which reads upon “solution nitriding the steel body at a temperature of 1050°C to 1190°C for 1 h to 24 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (which reads upon “after the solution nitriding, performing an intermediate tempering at a temperature of 600°C to 1000°C for 1 h to 6 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (which reads upon “after the intermediate tempering process, performing a reaustenitizing annealing at a temperature of 1000°C to 1275°C for 0.1 h to 2.5 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “this step iii) can be regarded as an isothermal heat treatment step or refinement step, which may be necessary to refine the microstructure of steels containing a large fraction of carbon and nitrogen, and that introduction of the isothermal step may take place between hardening processes such as between nitriding and austenisation” (which reads upon “to reduce austenite grain sizes in the steel body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0070]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the largely unspecified heating regime of Kerrigan with the steps, temperatures, and times, as taught by Villa to produce a steel component such that a fine-grained hard microstructure of both the nitrogen-affected case and the bulk steel material can be obtained, and that the resulting fine-grained microstructure has several benefits over the coarse-grained structure, such as improved strength and ductility.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches “a steel alloy comprising” (paragraph [0011]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.05 to 0.25 wt. % carbon” (which reads upon “wherein: the carbon content of the steel body is less than 0.25 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Kerrigan teaches “from 10 to 14 wt. % chromium” (which reads upon “the chromium content is greater than 11.0 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.3 to 3 wt. % nickel” (paragraph [0016]). Kerrigan teaches “from 1.5 to 4 wt. % molybdenum” (paragraph [0014]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.1 to 1 wt. % manganese” (paragraph [0019]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, modified Kerrigan teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute. All heating in Kerrigan is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute. All heating in Kerrigan is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claims 16-17, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches that “after the first temper, the parts may be deep-frozen at near liquid nitrogen temperature then re-tempered” (paragraph [0095]; liquid nitrogen temperature is about −196 °C). Villa teaches that “after SN, isothermal holding followed by hardening was repeated twice and finalized with cryogenic treatment and two tempering cycles” (paragraph [0131]; cryogenic reads on a low-temperature treatment is carried out at a temperature from -40°C to -196°C). Villa teaches that “FIG. 18 shows the thermal cycle implemented in example 7” (paragraph [0131]; FIG. 18 shows the cryogenic treatment was 6 hours and the tempering was about 300 °C for about 5 hours).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Villa teaches that “FIG. 1 b shows a schematic representation of one embodiment of thermal cycles applied according to any of the processes of the presently disclosed invention” (paragraph [0109]). Villa FIG. 1 b shows the claimed quenching.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute. All heating in Kerrigan is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Kerrigan teaches that “after the first temper, the parts may be deep-frozen at near liquid nitrogen temperature then re-tempered” (paragraph [0095]; liquid nitrogen temperature is about −196 °C). Villa teaches that “refrigeration at −80° ° C. for 8 hours in dry ice; and double tempering 2×2 hours at 250° C” (paragraph [00132]). Villa teaches that “FIG. 1 b shows a schematic representation of one embodiment of thermal cycles applied according to any of the processes of the presently disclosed invention” (paragraph [0109]). Villa FIG. 1 b shows the claimed quenching.
Regarding claim 21, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 18 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches “an oil or gas quench” (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 16 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches that “powder metallurgy (PM) processing is also possible, and that the powder metallurgical route would typically require the application of hot isostatic pressing (HIP) of the metal powder for optimal density” (paragraph [0087]). Kerrigan teaches that “afterwards, the steel alloy or bearing component may be finished by means of hard-turning and/or finishing operations such as, for example, grinding, lapping and honing” (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, modified Kerrigan teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 12 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches that “the steel alloy or bearing component may be subjected to a surface finishing technique, for example, burnishing, especially for raceways, followed by, if necessary, tempering and air-cooling” (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches “a steel alloy comprising” (paragraph [0011]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.05 to 0.25 wt. % carbon” (which reads upon “wherein: the carbon content of the steel body is less than 0.25 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0012]). Kerrigan teaches “from 10 to 14 wt. % chromium” (which reads upon “the chromium content is greater than 11.0 weight-%”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0013]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.3 to 3 wt. % nickel” (paragraph [0016]). Kerrigan teaches “from 1.5 to 4 wt. % molybdenum” (paragraph [0014]). Kerrigan teaches “from 0.1 to 1 wt. % manganese” (paragraph [0019]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, modified Kerrigan teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 26, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 25 as stated above. Kerrigan teaches that “the steel alloy or bearing component may be subjected to a surface finishing technique, for example, burnishing, especially for raceways, followed by, if necessary, tempering and air-cooling” (paragraph [0098]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 26 as stated above. Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, modified Kerrigan teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 28, modified Kerrigan teaches the method of claim 27 as stated above. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]).
Claims 11-12, 14, 19, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al. (US 20160040262 A1), in view of Sherof et al. (US 20160047020 A1), and Villa et al. (US 20240271239 A1).
Regarding claims 11-12, 14, 19, and 25-30, Snyder teaches that “disclosed are stainless steel alloys, methods for making the alloys, and manufactured articles comprising the alloys” (which reads upon “a method of manufacturing a component”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0016]). Snyder teaches that “such alloys can be useful for manufacture of articles including, but not limited to, aircraft engine bearings and lift fan gearbox bearings” (which reads upon “a component of a bearing comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0022]). Snyder teaches “said alloy comprising, in combination by weight percent, about 10.0 to about 14.5 Cr, about 0.3 to about 7.5 Ni, Co up to about 17.0 Co, about 0.6 to about 1.5 Mo, about 0.25 to about 2.3 Cu, up to about 0.6 Mn, up to about 0.4 Si, about 0.05 to about 0.15 V, up to about 0.10 N, C up to about 0.2 C, up to about 0.01 W, and the balance Fe and incidental elements and impurities” (which reads upon “providing a steel body having a carbon content of less than 0.3 weight-% (< 0.25 wt %), a chromium content of greater than 8.0 weight-%, (> 11 %, 13 %), a nitrogen content of less than 0.1 weight-% (0.07%), the steel body includes nickel, molybdenum, and/or manganese, 3 weight-% Co, 2 weight-% Ni, 1 weight-% Mo”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0175]). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Snyder teaches that “design of the alloys was based upon providing a high chromium martensitic steel specifically configured for solution nitriding” (paragraph [0017]). Snyder teaches that “the alloys may be subjected to solution nitriding” (paragraph [0068]). Snyder teaches that “the alloys may be vacuum heat treated at 1100° C. for 4 hours in the presence of 100% N2 gas, at a partial pressure of 1 PSIG” (which reads upon “solution nitriding the steel body at a temperature of 1050°C to 1190°C for 1 h to 24 h, solution nitriding is carried out isothermally at a temperature of 1100°C to 1150°C for 1h to 12 h”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0068]; no ramping of temperatures is mentioned). Snyder teaches that “the alloys may be subjected to an isothermal aging” (which reads upon “after solution nitriding, performing an intermediate tempering, the intermediate tempering is carried out isothermally”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0069]).
Snyder is silent regarding a rolling-element bearing, wherein the component is a raceway element, and wherein the component is a bearing ring constituted from a steel tube.
Sherof is similarly concerned with the field of steels and bearings (paragraph [0002]). Sherof teaches that “conventional techniques for manufacturing metal components involve hot-rolling or hot-forging to form a bar, rod, tube or ring, followed by a soft forming process to obtain the desired component” (which reads upon “constituted from a steel tube”, as recited in the instant claims; paragraph [0005]). Sherof teaches that “through-hardened components are also generally cheaper to manufacture than case-hardened components because they avoid the complex heat-treatments associated with carburizing, for example, and that for through-hardened bearing steel components, two heat-treating methods are available: martensite hardening or austempering” (paragraph [0007]). Sherof teaches that “the martensite through-hardening process involves austenitising the steel prior to quenching below the martensite start temperature, and that the steel may then be low-temperature tempered to stabilize the microstructure” (paragraph [0008]). Sherof teaches that “the bearing component can be at least one of a rolling element (for example ball or roller element), an inner ring, and an outer ring” (which reads upon “a rolling-element bearing, wherein the component is a raceway element, and wherein the component is a bearing ring”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0043]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the type of bearing of Snyder to be at least one of a rolling element (for example ball or roller element), an inner ring, and an outer ring, as taught by Sherof because Sherof teaches that martensite hardened steels (the steel of Snyder is a martensite hardened steel) are suitable for such bearings. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07.
Snyder is silent regarding performing an intermediate tempering at a temperature of 600°C to 1000°C for 1 h to 6 h to reduce austenite grain sizes in the steel body, and after the intermediate tempering process, performing a reaustenitizing annealing at a temperature of 1000°C to 1275°C for 0.1 h to 2.5 h.
Villa is similarly concerned with a process for the manufacture of a steel component comprising a fine-grained martensite structure component (paragraph [0002]). Villa teaches that “because nitrogen has a low solubility in molten iron, it is challenging to produce martensitic steels with a significant nitrogen content, for example greater than 0.1% by weight” (paragraph [0004]). Villa teaches that “another procedure for manufacturing high-nitrogen martensitic steels is adding of nitrogen to conventionally manufactured, low nitrogen, ferritic/martensitic steel components in the solid state by solution nitriding (SN)” (paragraph [0006]). Villa teaches that “a challenge associated with SN is the coarsening of the microstructure as a consequence of, for example, long-time exposure of the material at a high temperature” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “coarsening of the microstructure deteriorates the mechanical properties and hence the performance of these components in service” (paragraph [0007]). Villa teaches that “with the present disclosure, a steel component can be processed such that a fine-grained hard microstructure of both the nitrogen-affected case and the bulk steel material can be obtained, and that the resulting fine-grained microstructure has several benefits over the coarse-grained structure, such as improved strength and ductility” (paragraph [0011]). Villa teaches “one of the practical examples of the present disclosure may be the processing of bearing components, where the invention leads to surface properties and a microstructure similar to that of the expensive SAE AMS 5898 steel at the cost of a conventional low-nitrogen martensitic product” (paragraph [0034]). Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (which reads upon “solution nitriding the steel body at a temperature of 1050°C to 1190°C for 1 h to 24 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (which reads upon “after the solution nitriding, performing an intermediate tempering at a temperature of 600°C to 1000°C for 1 h to 6 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (which reads upon “after the intermediate tempering process, performing a reaustenitizing annealing at a temperature of 1000°C to 1275°C for 0.1 h to 2.5 h”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “this step iii) can be regarded as an isothermal heat treatment step or refinement step, which may be necessary to refine the microstructure of steels containing a large fraction of carbon and nitrogen, and that introduction of the isothermal step may take place between hardening processes such as between nitriding and austenisation” (which reads upon “to reduce austenite grain sizes in the steel body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0070]). Villa teaches that “the at least partly austenitic nitrogen-containing steel component therefore can be brought to an isothermal heat-treatment-step at a temperature where austenite is not stable and can decompose, and where precipitates can form” (paragraph [0069]). Villa is silent regarding a heating ramp or rate, or change per minute in the other heating stages. All heating in Villa is presumed to be isothermal. Villa teaches that “samples were SN in nitrogen gas at 1150±20° C. for 4 hours” (paragraph [0110]). Villa teaches that “following SN, the sample of proposed treatment was treated in nitrogen at 700° C. for 2 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “both samples were then subjected to a (second) hardening cycle consisting in austenitisation at 1050° C. at 0.7 bar nitrogen pressure for 0.5 hours” (paragraph [0111]). Villa teaches that “refrigeration at −80° ° C. for 8 hours in dry ice; and double tempering 2×2 hours at 250° C” (paragraph [00132]). Villa teaches that “FIG. 1 b shows a schematic representation of one embodiment of thermal cycles applied according to any of the processes of the presently disclosed invention” (paragraph [0109]). Villa FIG. 1 b shows the quenching of claim 19.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the heating regime of Snyder with the steps, temperatures, and times, as taught by Villa to produce a steel component such that a fine-grained hard microstructure of both the nitrogen-affected case and the bulk steel material can be obtained, and that the resulting fine-grained microstructure has several benefits over the coarse-grained structure, such as improved strength and ductility.
Regarding the nitrogen content of the surface layer, modified Snyder teaches overlapping compositions and processing steps, as described above.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (fine grained austenite), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26; Q1: 1/4-1/8/27.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights