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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 have been amended; Claims 6-12 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims, Claims 1-5 remain for examination, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claim 2 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/25/2025.
Previous objection of Claim 4 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/25/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 1-2 and 4-5 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 11/25/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s amendment, newly cited prior art(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection has been listed as following.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsuya et al (US-PG-pub 2016/0010192 A1, listed in IDS filed on 4/16/2024, thereafter PG’192) in view of Hatano Hitoshi et al (JP 2008127595 A, listed in IDS filed on 4/16/2024, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’595).
PG’192 in view of JP’195 is applied to the instant claims 1-5 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 8/29/2025.
Regarding the amended feature in claim 1, all of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by PG’192 (in the example #15 in table 1 and specification) are within or overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges as recited in the claimed ranges (Refer to the previous office cation dated 8/29/2025). PG’192 specify forming a martensite and/or bainite phase area fraction of not less than 80%. (claims and par.[0013], [0025], [0051], and [0110] of PG’195), which reads on the low temperature transformation phase of bainite and martensite as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding the amended feature in the instant claim 4, PG’192 provides indicates the example #15 in table 4 is absent surface porosities and having prior austenite grain size 33 mm, which reads on the claimed porosity and grain size as claimed in the instant claim 1. PG’192 indicates TS: 801 MPa; YS: 739 MPa; Charpy Energy value 203 (-40oC), which reads on the claimed properties as claimed in the instant claim.
Regarding other amendments in the instant claims, which do not change the scope of the instant claims.
Notes: Higashida et al (US-PG-pub 2014/0322066 A1) is cited as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-5 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments related to the amended features in the instant claim, the Examiner’s position has been stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments have been listed in the following:
1, PG’192 in view of JP’595 does not specify the claimed strain-induced NbC precipitates, which related by the hot forging process as disclosed by the instant invention;
2, PG’192 in view of JP’595 does not specify the claimed forging parameters as disclosed in the instant invention;
3, Nb composition, hot forging process and cooling process, the recrystallization temperature are essential for the claimed strain-induced NbC precipitates.
In response,
Regarding the arguments 1-3, Firstly, as discussed in the rejection above and in the previous office action dated 8/29/2025, all of the essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by PG’192 (in the example #15 in table 1 and specification) are within or overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges as recited in the claimed ranges (Refer to the previous office cation dated 8/29/2025); Secondly, JP’595 indicates including 0.2 or less wt% Nb (par.[0050] of JP’595) in order to form a large number of ultrafine Nb-included precipitates (30 nm or less) in a forged steel (par.[0014]-[0018] and [0028]-[0033] of JP’595). Thirdly, since the instant claims indicate product of steel material with composition, phases, properties, and NbC precipitates, the product itself is manipulated the claim limitations. The Applicant should provide evidence to show unexpected results in term of the features of the claimed alloy for the argued process (hot forging and cooling). Finally, it is noted that PG’192 in view of JP’595 not only indicates the similar alloy composition, microstructure, and NbC precipitates, but also teaches the same TS, YS, and Charpy Energy value for the same ultra-thick steel material. The Applicant is suggested to provide evidence (proper 132 Declaration) to show the criticality of the recrystallization temperature (as disclosed in the withdrawn claim 6).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734