DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 12 are pending.
Claim 11 is cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the steel pipe” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each steel pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 2, claim 2 recites, “the other member” in line 3, “the steel pipe” in line 4 and “the steel pipe” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the another member,” “each steel pipe” and “each steel pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “the other member” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the another member” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the steel pipe” in line 2, “the steel pipe” in line 3, and “the other member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each steel pipe,” “each steel pipe” and “the another member” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 8, claim 8 recites, “the other steel pipe” in line 6, “the other member” in line 8 and “the other steel pipe” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the another steel pipe,” “the another member” and “the another steel pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the steel pipe” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each steel pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 12, claim 12 recites, “the steel pipe” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language is intended to recite, “each steel pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 3, 5-6 and 10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (“Yoshida”) (US 2017/0197669) in view of Frehn et al (“Frehn”) (US 2018/0222536) and Takagi et al (“Takagi”) (US 2015/0274218).
Re claim 1, Yoshida discloses a structural member (Fig. 2-3; 10) comprising:
a plurality of steel pipes (11, 12; [0034]; [0037]),
wherein the steel pipe (Fig. 3) has a quenched portion (16; [0047]) in a pipe center portion (Fig. 3) and a non-quenched portion (18) extending over a whole circumference (Fig. 3) of at least one pipe end portion (right end thereof),
martensite ([0035]) in the quenched portion (16),
in the non-quenched portion (18),
an area ratio of a pearlite is 0% or more and 70% or less (Fig. 3, as Yoshida makes no mention of any pearlite in the non-quenched portion thus disclosing 0%; see also below), and
a total area ratio of a martensite and a bainite is 0% or more and 10% or less (Fig. 3, as Yoshida makes no mention of any martensite or bainite in the non-quenched portion thus disclosing 0%; see also below), and
the non-quenched portion (18) has a welded portion (proximate 13) that is welded to ([0038]) another member (12),
but fails to disclose in the quenched portion, an area ratio of a martensite is 90% or more, in the non-quenched portion, an area ratio of a ferrite is 30% or more and 100% or less.
However, Frehn discloses in the quenched portion ([0002]), an area ratio of a martensite is 90% or more ([0032] states, “at least 80%” which includes more than 80% and thus, 90%).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida with, in the quenched portion, an area ratio of a martensite is 90% or more as disclosed by Frehn in order to provide a lightweight construction which is ultra-high-strength ([0031]).
In addition, Takagi discloses in the non-quenched portion (Fig. 2), an area ratio of a ferrite is 30% or more and 100% or less ([0074]), an area ratio of a pearlite is 0% or more and 70% or less ([0074]), and a total area ratio of a martensite and a bainite is 0% or more and 10% or less ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida with, in the non-quenched portion, an area ratio of a ferrite is 30% or more and 100% or less, an area ratio of a pearlite is 0% or more and 70% or less, a total area ratio of a martensite and a bainite is 0% or more and 10% or less as disclosed by Takagi in order to provide sufficient tensile strength and better yield elongation which is useful during manufacturing for elongation ([0075]).
Re claim 9, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, wherein a strength of the quenched portion (16) in the steel pipe (10) is 1,470 MPa or more ([0006]).
Re claim 10, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a length of the structural member in a longitudinal direction is more than 3,000 mm.
However, 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 structural member of Yoshida wherein a length of the structural member in a longitudinal direction is more than 3,000 mm in order to use with a larger vehicle. In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 12, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, a strength of the non-quenched portion (at 18; Abstract disclosing base material of 700MPa), but fails to disclose the strength is 690 MPa or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida with the strength is 690 MPa or less in order to aid in connection to the additional member, such as by easier welding through increased ductility and reducing the risk of cracking.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (“Yoshida”) (US 2017/0197669) in view of Frehn et al (“Frehn”) (US 2018/0222536), Takagi et al (“Takagi”) (US 2015/0274218) and Rinchart (US 6,010,155).
Re claim 2, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: as the other member, a joint part that is a hollow tubular member and has a center portion having a diameter larger than both end portions, and connection portions that connect both the end portions and the center portion, wherein an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion and the connection portion in the joint part are welded to each other, and an outer circumferential surface of the steel pipe and an outer circumferential surface of the center portion are substantially coincident with each other.
However, Rinchart discloses further comprising: as the other member (Fig. 8-9; 51), a joint part (at 60) that is a hollow tubular member (51) and has a center portion (Fig. 5 middle of 51) having a diameter larger than (Fig. 8) both end portions (ends of 51), and connection portions (55) that connect both the end portions (ends of 51) and the center portion (middle of 51), wherein an end surface (at 55) of the steel pipe (51) disposed in the non-quenched portion (per the above; 57) and the connection portion (55) in the joint part (at 60) are welded (60a) to each other (Fig. 9), and an outer circumferential surface (of 57) of the steel pipe (57) and an outer circumferential surface (of 51) of the center portion (middle of 51) are substantially coincident with each other (Fig. 8, both being generally rectangular).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida with further comprising: as the other member, a joint part that is a hollow tubular member and has a center portion having a diameter larger than both end portions, and connection portions that connect both the end portions and the center portion, wherein an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion and the connection portion in the joint part are welded to each other, and an outer circumferential surface of the steel pipe and an outer circumferential surface of the center portion are substantially coincident with each other as disclosed by Rinchart in order to join members together with a quick and simple weld (Col 2 lines 58-62).
Re claim 3, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 2, Rinchart discloses wherein the joint part (at 60) is configured in a linear shape (Fig. 9).
Re claim 4, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: as the other member (51), a joint part (portion of 51 at 60) that is a hollow tubular member (at 60) configured in a linear shape (portion 60 being linear) and has substantially the same diameter along an axial direction (Fig. 9, portion 60 up to 55), wherein an end portion of the joint part (at 60) in the axial direction (Fig. 9) is inserted into the steel pipes (57) adjacent to each other (Fig. 9), and the end portion (of 57) of the steel pipe (57) adjacent to each other (Fig. 9) are separated from each other (Fig. 9) and are welded to (60a) the joint part (at 60) at different positions (Fig. 11) of the joint part (at 60) in the axial direction (Fig. 8-9 and 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida further comprising: as the other member, a joint part that is a hollow tubular member configured in a linear shape and has substantially the same diameter along an axial direction, wherein an end portion of the joint part in the axial direction is inserted into the steel pipe adjacent to each other, and the end portion of the steel pipes adjacent to each other are separated from each other and are welded to the joint part at different positions of the joint part in the axial direction as disclosed by Rinchart in order to join members together with a quick and simple weld (Col 2 lines 58-62).
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida wherein the other end portion of the joint part in the axial direction is respectively inserted into the steel pipe adjacent to each other, and respective end portions of the steel pipes adjacent to each other are separated from each other and are welded to the joint part at different positions of the joint part in the axial direction (such as by utilizing an additional 57 on the other end of 51) in order to provide extension at the other end as well. In addition, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Re claim 5, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 2, Rinchart discloses wherein joint part (at 60) is constituted by two or more parts (the end of 57 and the end of 51), and each of the two or more parts (the end of 57 and the end of 51) includes a portion included in an end surface (the end of 57 and the end of 51) of the joint part (at 60).
Re claim 6, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 2, a strength of the joint part (at 13; Abstract disclosing base material of 700MPa), but fails to disclose the strength of the joint part is 590 MPa or less.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida with the strength of the joint part is 590 MPa or less in order to aid in connection to the additional member, such as by easier welding through increased ductility and reducing the risk of cracking.
Re claim 8, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least one steel pipe among the plurality of steel pipes has a reduced diameter portion which is smaller in diameter than the pipe center portion in a predetermined region from an end surface of the steel pipe toward a center in the axial direction, the reduced diameter portion is inserted into the other steel pipe, which is the other member, an outer circumferential surface of the non-quenched portion in the reduced diameter portion and an end surface of the other steel pipe are welded to each other, and outer circumferential surfaces of the plurality of steel pipes are substantially coincident with each other.
However, Rinchart discloses wherein at least one steel pipe (51) among the plurality of steel pipes (51, 57) has a reduced diameter portion (at 60) which is smaller in diameter (Fig. 9) than the pipe center portion (middle of 51) in a predetermined region (Fig. 9) from an end surface (end of 51) of the steel pipe (51) toward a center in the axial direction (Fig. 9), the reduced diameter portion (at 60) is inserted into (Fig. 9) the other steel pipe (57), which is the other member (57), an outer circumferential surface (of 51) of the non-quenched portion (per the above) in the reduced diameter portion (at 60) and an end surface (of 57) of the other steel pipe (57) are welded to each other (60a), and outer circumferential surfaces (of 51 and 57) of the plurality of steel pipes (51, 57, at least in the middle) are substantially coincident with each other (being both substantially rectangular).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida wherein at least one steel pipe among the plurality of steel pipes has a reduced diameter portion which is smaller in diameter than the pipe center portion in a predetermined region from an end surface of the steel pipe toward a center in the axial direction, the reduced diameter portion is inserted into the other steel pipe, which is the other member, an outer circumferential surface of the non-quenched portion in the reduced diameter portion and an end surface of the other steel pipe are welded to each other, and outer circumferential surfaces of the plurality of steel pipes are substantially coincident with each other as disclosed by Rinchart in order to join members together with a quick and simple weld (Col 2 lines 58-62).
Re claim 11, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein welded heat-affected zones are separated from each other.
However, Rinchart discloses wherein welded heat-affected zones (Fig. 11, 61a, 58e) are separated from each other (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida wherein welded heat-affected zones are separated from each other as disclosed by Rinchart in order to join members together with a quick and simple weld (Col 2 lines 58-62) and do so in a permanent manner.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al (“Yoshida”) (US 2017/0197669) in view of Frehn et al (“Frehn”) (US 2018/0222536), Takagi et al (“Takagi”) (US 2015/0274218) and Shimasaki (US 202/0298915).
Re claim 7, Yoshida as modified discloses the structural member according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion and an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion, which is the other member, are butt-welded to each other such that outer circumferential surfaces of the steel pipes are substantially coincident with each other.
However, Shimasaki discloses wherein an end surface (36A) of the steel pipe (36) disposed in the non- quenched portion (per the above) and an end surface (38A) of the steel pipe (38) disposed in the non- quenched portion (per the above), which is the other member (38), are butt-welded to each other (40; [0041]) such that outer circumferential surfaces (of 38 and 36) of the steel pipes (36 and 38) are substantially coincident with each other (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural member of Yoshida wherein an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion and an end surface of the steel pipe disposed in the non- quenched portion, which is the other member, are butt-welded to each other such that outer circumferential surfaces of the steel pipes are substantially coincident with each other as disclosed by Shimasaki in order to create a high-strength flush connection that is ideal for high pressure systems, providing a continuous section.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn but for those above either necessitated by amendment or not previously addressed via amendments.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references does not disclose the quenched/non-quenched portions with the claimed area ratios. As noted in the previous rejection and the above, the combination discloses each claimed feature. Applicant further contends that one of ordinary skill would not combine Yoshida with Frehn and Tagaki. A person of ordinary skill would look to a reference if that reference is analogous to the claimed invention. The field of endeavor of the claimed invention is “a structural member.” Each of Yoshida with Frehn and Tagaki are drawn to structural members and are thus within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would look to Frehn and Tagaki to modify Yoshida.
Moreover, Applicant argues that the cited tensile strengths of Tagaki and Yoshida cannot be combined. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the combined teachings of the references suggest the claimed tensile strengths and the claimed area ratios. Therefore, the combination of Yoshida with Frehn and Tagaki reads on the claim.
Applicant’s arguments concerning new claim 12 are addressed by the above rejection.
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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights