CTNF 18/688,357 CTNF 89564 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollivaud (US 5303553) and Okano (US 20190211414) . Ollivaud teaches a container that is composed of two or more pipes or tubes (Fig 1, #1 & 2) connected by screw threads (Fig 1) and coupling nut. Ollivaud fails to teach the tube is steel. Okano teaches a steel tube with excellent crack resistance. The steel overcomes issues with the prior art and provides for crack resistance at low costs (¶54). As Ollivaud fails to teach any materials for the pipes a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the steel of Okano for the pipe of Ollivaud with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of crack resistance at low cost. Ollivaud in view of Okano (hereinafter modified Ollivaud) renders obvious claim 1. With respect to claims 2 and 3, modified Ollivaud teaches the base claim (1) and further with respect to claim 2, Ollivaud teaches the connection is on the inner side and with respect to claim 3, Ollivaud teaches a connection on the outer side (see Fig 1). With respect to claims 4, 8, and 9 modified Ollivaud teaches the base claim (1, 2, and 3 respectively) and Ollivaud teaches a sealing member (Fig 1, #13). With respect to claims 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 6, modified Ollivaud teaches the base claim (1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9 respectively.) Okano teaches a steel composition which provides for the benefits of crack resistance includes as the elements in overlapping ranges as claimed (¶19). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Okano steel for the benefit of crack resistance. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). With respect to claims 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 modified Ollivaud teaches the base claim (5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 respectively). Okano teaches other elements, such as Mo in an amount within the range of the claims can be added for higher strength (¶84-85). A PHOSIA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use an embodiment with Mo for higher strength . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollivaud (US 5303553) and Okano (US 20190211414) as applied to claim s 5 and 6 above and further in view of Silva (The effects of non-metallic inclusions on properties relevant to the performance of steel in structural and mechanical applications) and/or Findley (The Effects of Inclusions on Fatigue Performance of Steel Alloys) . With respect to claims 7 and 20, Ollivaud teaches the base claim (5 and 6 respectively). Okano teaches no retained austinite (see Table 2) but does not teach the number density of inclusions having an aspect ratio of 2 or more and length of 10 µm or more is 10 or less per 100 mm 2 . However, Silva teaches inclusions impact the mechanical properties of steel (abstract) with the type, size, and distribution effecting the properties (p.2409). Silva teaches tailoring the inclusions as a known widely used technique in the industry (p.2409). Findley teaches that inclusions are detrimental to fatigue performance and that the harmfulness of inclusions depends on their type, size, morphology, and volume fraction. It further teaches that inclusion characterization should include composition, aspect ratio and size distribution and that the upper tail of the inclusion size distribution is more critical than the majority of the distribution because the largest inclusions control fatigue behavior (p.234–235). Based on the teachings of Silva and/or Findley a PHOSIA prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to improve performance by limiting the number of inclusions and especially the large elongated inclusions in steel products. The claimed parameter (the number density of inclusions having an aspect ratio of 2 or more and length of 10 or more being 10 or less per 100 mm 2 ) represent no more than the routine optimization of the variables identified in the prior art as result-effective. Thus, setting a limit such as no more than 10 inclusions per 100 mm² for inclusions having aspect ratio ≥ 2.0 and major axis ≥ 10 µm would have been obvious to the PHOSIA whose desire is to improve fatigue performance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art ( In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation ( In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed parameter is critical and has unexpected results. The data in Table 1 does not provide a comparison to any steel outside the claimed range and as such no unexpected results have been established. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK J VINEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. 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, Greg Tryder can be reached at (571) 270-7365. 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. /FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/688,357 Page 2 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/688,357 Page 3 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/688,357 Page 4 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/688,357 Page 5 Art Unit: 1781
Prosecution Insights