DETAILED ACTIONS
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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 16 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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 – 2 and 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Guo teaches a steel (line 67) comprising: C (line 71); 1.5 wt % to 2.3 wt % Si (line 69) ; 0.5 wt % to 1.3 wt % Ni (line 69) ; a grain refining agent (lines 100-101), selected from the group consisting of 0.08 wt% to 0.25 wt % V (line 69), 0.015 wt% to 0.04 wt % Nb (line 69) , and a combination thereof; and the balance being Fe and inevitable impurities (lines 69-70).
Guo et al. further teaches carbon comprises between 0.28-0.35 wt % (line 69) but does not explicitly teach that the range of the weight percent of the Carbon is 0.8-0.87.
Yang, however, teaches steel for a drill rod and a preparation method of the steel comprising comprising:0.8 wt% to 0.87 wt% C (Paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. to further include 0.8 wt% to 0.87 wt% C, as taught by Yang, to provide improved strength and hardness of the steel, so that the drill rod made from the steel has good strength and hardness and can be used in relatively harsh conditions.
Regarding Claim 2, Guo, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Guo does not teach the steel further comprising 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% Mn, 0.3 wt% to 1.5 wt% Cr, or a combination thereof.
Yang, however, teaches the steel further comprising 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% Mn (Paragraph [0008]), 0.3 wt% to 1.5 wt% Cr, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. to further include the steel further comprising 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% Mn, 0.3 wt% to 1.5 wt% Cr, or a combination thereof, as taught by Yang, to provide improved strength and hardness of the steel, so that the drill rod made from the steel has good strength and hardness and can be used in relatively harsh conditions.
Regarding Claim 5, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) that does not comprise of Mo (lines 69-70).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) which comprises non-unstable residual austenite (RA) (line 181).
Claims 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A) and Kondo et al. (Japanese Publication No. JPH05195140A).
Regarding Claim 3, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) according to claim 1 but does not disclose that it contains aluminum.
Kondo et al. teaches a steel which comprises 0.01 wt % of Al (Paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. with a small weight percentage of Aluminum as taught by Kondo et al. to provide improved strength and hardness of the steel and further enhance its resistance to oxidation and corrosion.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) according to claim 1 and further discloses inevitable impurities (lines 69-70).
Guo et al. however, does not explicitly disclose the elements the impurities comprise of.
Kondo et al. teaches a steel which comprises the impurities comprising 0.01 wt % or less S (Paragraph 9), 0.02 wt % or less P (Paragraph 9), 0.01 wt % or less N (Paragraph 9), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. with the small weight percentages of S, P, and N in the inevitable impurities of steel making as taught by Kondo et al. to improve soundness and reduces porosity.
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A) and Zhu et al (US Patent No. US011530461B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) wherein the non-unstable residual austenite is in the form of films (line 34) but does not explicitly disclose that the area fraction of the non-unstable RA films in a cross section of the steel is 15% to 20%.
Zhu et al. teaches a steel with non-unstable residual austenite is in the form of films and its area fraction of the non-unstable RA films in a cross section of the steel is 15% to 20% (Column 9, lines 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. with the residual austenite having 15-20% of area fraction to improve the ductility and toughness of the steel.
Regarding Claim 8, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Guo does not teach a martensite-start temperature (Ms temperature) of the steel is 250 degrees Celsius or less.
Zhu et al teaches to process steel wherein a martensite-start temperature (Ms temperature) of the steel is 250 degrees Celsius or less (Column 5, line 53). Zhu et al. also mentions that one skilled in the art can determine the Ms start transformation point of the austenite (Column 5, lines 57-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. with the Martensite start temperature of the steel as taught by Zhu et al. since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A) and Drillet et al. (US Patent No. US010597745B2).
Regarding Claim 9, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Guo does not teach a temperature at which transformation of ferrite to austenite is completed during heating (Ac3 temperature) of the steel is 850 degrees Celsius or less.
Drillet, however, teaches to process steel wherein a temperature at which transformation of ferrite to austenite is completed during heating (Ac3 temperature) of the steel is 850 degrees Celsius or less (Column 15, Table 2). Drillet et al. also mentions that the value of Ac3 can be adjusted (Column 6, lines 56-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo et al. with the Ac3 temperature of the steel as taught by Drillet et al. since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section II). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing of the steel of Guo et al. with the Ac3 temperature of Drillet et al. since it is known in the art that keeping Ac3 below 850 degrees Celsius ensures complete and uniform austenitization.
Claims 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A) and Sun et al (Chinese Publication No. CN110923415A).
Regarding Claim 10, Guo, as modified, teaches a steel (line 67) according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Guo does not teach using it to form a screwdriver bit.
Sun et al. teaches steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steel of Guo to form a screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Regarding Claim 11, Guo, as modified, a steel (line 67) according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach the steel of a bit further comprises 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% Mn, 0.3 wt% to 1.5 wt % Cr, or a combination thereof.
Sun, however, teaches the use of steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22) wherein the steel comprises of 0.3 wt % to 1.2 wt % Mn (line 48), and 0.3 wt % to 1.5 wt % Cr (line 48), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include 0.3 wt% to 1.2 wt% Mn, 0.3 wt% to 1.5 wt % Cr, or a combination thereof, as taught by Sun to form a screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Regarding Claim 12, Guo, as modified, a steel (line 67) according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach the steel of a bit further comprises 0.015 wt% to 0.05 wt% Al.
Sun et al. teaches the use of steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22) wherein the steel further comprises 0.015 wt % to 0.05 wt % Al (line 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include 0.015 wt% to 0.05 wt% Al to form a screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Regarding Claim 13, Guo, as modified, a steel (line 67) according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach the steel of a bit wherein the inevitable impurities comprise 0.01 wt% or less S, 0.02 wt% or less P, 0.01 wt% or less N, or a combination thereof.
Sun et al. teaches the use of steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22) wherein the inevitable impurities comprise 0.01 wt % or less S (line 48), 0.02 wt % or less P (line 48), 0.01 wt % or less N (line 49), or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include 0.01 wt% or less S, 0.02 wt% or less P, 0.01 wt% or less N, or a combination thereof to form a screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Regarding Claim 14, Guo, as modified, a steel (line 67) according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach the steel of a bit wherein the steel does not comprise Mo.
Sun et al. teaches the use of steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22) wherein the steel does not comprise Mo (line 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include wherein the steel does not comprise Mo to form a cost effective screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Regarding Claim 15, Guo, as modified, a steel (line 67) according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach the steel of a bit wherein the steel comprises non- unstable residual austenite (RA).
Sun et al. teaches the use of steel to form a screwdriver bit (lines 19-22) wherein the steel comprises non-unstable residual austenite (RA) (line 174).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include non- unstable residual austenite (RA) to form a screwdriver bit with high strength to prevent the bit from breaking.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 113201690 B) in view of Yang (CN112322984 A) and Liu et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN113337694B).
Regarding Claim 16, Guo, as modified, a steel according to claim 10.
Guo does not teach A method for processing a steel, comprising: spheroidizing annealing the steel of Claim 1 to form a spheroidized material, wherein an Ms temperature of the spheroidized material is 250°C or less; and heat treating the spheroidized material in a salt bath, wherein a temperature of the salt bath (Tsait) is in the range of: Ms temperature.
Liu, however, teaches a method for processing a steel (lines 63-64), comprising: spheroidizing annealing (lines 63-64), to form a spheroidized material (line 291), wherein an Ms temperature of the spheroidized material is 250ºC or less (lines 66-68); The examiner notes that the martensite start temperature can be within the isothermal treatment range. Since Liu et al. discloses that the spheroidized material is subjected to isothermal treatment at 200 ºC -300 ºC, the Ms temperature can be 250 ºC or less. Liu continues to teach a heat treating the spheroidized material in a salt bath (lines 66-68), wherein a temperature of the salt bath (Tsalt) is in the range of: Ms temperature - 50ºC ≤ Tsalt ≤ Ms temperature + 50ºC (“salt bath below Ms point”, lines 66-68).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Guo to further include a method for processing a steel, comprising: spheroidizing annealing to form a spheroidized material, wherein an Ms temperature of the spheroidized material is 250°C or less; and heat treating the spheroidized material in a salt bath, wherein a temperature of the salt bath (Tsait) is in the range of: Ms temperature - 500C<Tsalt, to provide a method that improves machinability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated July 20, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights