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 .
Restriction Requirement
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Group I, claims 1-13, drawn to a component with a steel part.
Group II, claims 14-17, drawn to a method of manufacturing a component.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
If Group I is elected, then this application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The Group I microstructure species are as follows:
Species I-BM: drawn to a bainitic and/or martensitic microstructure. (Appears to be claim 12.)
Species I-FP: drawn to a ferritic-pearlitic microstructure. (Appears to be claim 13.)
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claims in Group I are generic: 1-11.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The inventions of Group I and Group II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of the component with a steel part composition as recited in claim 14, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Matsumoto (EP 3078758).
Matsumoto discloses a method of manufacturing a component (bolt) ([0001]) with a steel part (steel wire) ([0001]), the method comprising the steps of:
- Providing a steel with an overlapping composition ([0010]-[0014], [0030]-[0053])
Element
Claim 14
Matsumoto
Matsumoto
C
0.30 to 0.50
0.20 to 0.35
[0031]
Mn
0.05 to 1.3
0.3 to 1.5
[0033]
P
0.001 to 0.015
More than 0 to 0.020
[0034]
S
0.001 to 0.015
More than 0 to 0.020
[0035]
Si
0.01 to 0.8
0.01 or more
[0032]
Cr
0.3 to 1.5
0.10 to 1.5
[0036]
V
0.005 to 0.40
More than 0 to 0.30
[0047]
B
0.0008 to 0.0050
0.0005 to 0.005
[0038]
Al
0.02 to 0.35
0.01 to 0.10
[0037]
N
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.001 or more
[0039]
Ti
0.01 to 0.08
0.02 to 0.10
[0040]
Zr
0.0030 to 0.0800
More than 0 to 0.3
[0052]
a composition having 0.30 - 0.50 wt. % C, 0.05 - 1.3 wt. % Mn, 0.001 - 0.015 wt. % P, 0.001 - 0.015 wt. % S, 0.01 - 0.8 wt. % Si, 0.3 - 1.5 wt. % Cr, 0.005 - 0.40 wt. % V, 0.0008 - 0.0050 wt. % B, 0.02 - 0.35 wt. % Al, 0.0001 - 0.0200 wt. % N, 0.01 - 0.08 wt. % Ti, and 0.0030 - 0.0800 wt. % Zr; and
forming at least a part of a component (bolt) with the steel ([0056], [0063]-[0077]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Species I-BM and Species I-FP lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
Restriction Election
During a telephone conversation with Peter Cummings on June 11, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I and Species I-BM, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of EP 21211997.8 filed December 2, 2021 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2023/099654, the WIPO publication of PCT/EP 2022/084020 filed December 1, 2022.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claims filed November 11, 2025 and Applicant’s Restriction Election made June 11, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
November 11, 2025
Amended
1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16
Pending
1-17
Withdrawn
13-17
Under Examination
1-12
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
Lines 1-2 “the steel, among other things, 0.30 - 0.50 wt. % C,…” is incomplete because it does not complete what is meant “among other things”. It also does not indicate how the steel is related to the recited composition.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 lines 1-2 “A component with a constituent made of steel, the component comprising: steel” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the component’s constituent made of steel is related to the steel that the component comprises. The component’s constituent made of steel could be limited to the recited steel composition or the component could be limited to the recited steel composition with the steel constituent composition not being limited. For the purpose of examination claim 1 is interpreted as the component being limited to the claimed composition.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 “the steel” renders these claims indefinite. The steel could refer to a component’s “constituent made of steel” or “the component comprising: steel”. For the purpose of examination the claims are interpreted as “the steel” referring to the steel that the component comprises.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 “the steel consists of unavoidable impurity that amounts to ≤ 0.01 wt.%” renders the claim indefinite. The transitional phase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim. MPEP 2111.03(II). It is unclear how the steel can exclude elements other than “unavoidable impurity”, particularly when claim 1, which claim 5 depends from, recites that the steel has specific amounts of C, Mn, P, S, Si, Cr, V, B, Al, N, Ti, and Zr. Furthermore it is unclear how the steel can both “consist of” unavoidable impurity, yet the unavoidable impurity amount be ≤ 0.01 wt.%. For the purpose of examination claim 5 is interpreted as the steel including unavoidable impurity that amount to ≤ 0.01 wt.%.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 9 line 2 recites the broad recitation “a depth of 30 – 100 um”, and the claim also recites “preferably 40 – 120 um” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination claim 9 is interpreted as requiring the broad recitation of a depth of 30 – 100 um.
Claim 12 lines 1-2 “the microstructure of the steel is…bainitic and/or martensitic after tempering” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 12 could limit the microstructure to be bainitic and/or martensitic only after tempering, such that if no tempering is performed, then the microstructure is not limited. Alternatively, claim 12 could require a tempered bainitic and/or martensitic structure. For the purpose of examination claim 12 will be interpreted as requiring the microstructure of the steel to be ≥ 90% by volume tempered bainite and/or tempered martensite.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fujita (JP 2007-031746 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses a component (bolt) with a constituent made of steel ([0001], [0007], [0031]), the component comprising: steel having a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed ([0008]-[0030], Table 1 No. 19); wherein the constituent of the component has a steel surface (a bolt shape of steel has a steel surface) ([0032]).
Element
Claim 1 wt%
Fujita Table 1 No. 19
C
0.30 to 0.50
0.35
Mn
0.05 to 1.3
0.59
P
0.001 to 0.015
0.006
S
0.001 to 0.015
0.008
Si
0.01 to 0.8
0.08
Cr
0.3 to 1.5
1.05
V
0.005 to 0.40
0.15
B
0.0008 to 0.0050
0.0014
Al
0.02 to 0.35
0.044
N
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.0044
Ti
0.01 to 0.08
0.055
Zr
0.0030 to 0.0800
0.037
Mo
-
0.30
The limitation of the B content in the steel at a depth of 5 – 60 µm being ≥ 80 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the steel surface has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19). The prior art also discloses a process (Fujita [0032]-[0037]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed component (applicant’s specification 15:10 to 16:28, claims 14-17). Therefore, the properties of the inventive steel, including the B content in the steel at a depth of 5 – 60 µm being ≥ 80 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the steel surface are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Where applicant claims composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPEP 2112(III).
Applicant’s Specification 15:10 to 16:28
Fujita [0032]-[0037]
Provide a steel with the composition
Process bolt steel
Form a component with a steel part, such as by:
Rolling
Producing a wire or bar of steel
Optional GKZ annealing
Wire drawing
Forming
Conventional Processing
Hot-rolled
Spheroidized and annealed
Wire drawing
Cold work such as cold heading or cold forging to form a bolt shape
Optionally heat treat
Heating and quenching (hardening) then tempering
Regarding claim 2, the B content in the steel at a depth of 5 – 60 um being ≥ 90 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19). The prior art also discloses a process (Fujita [0032]-[0037]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed component (applicant’s specification 15:10 to 16:28, claims 14-17). Therefore, the properties of the inventive steel, including the B content in the steel at a depth of 5 – 60 um being ≥ 90 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Where applicant claims composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPEP 2112(III).
Regarding claim 3, the B content in the steel at a depth of 140 – 220 um being ≥ 80 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the surface has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19). The prior art also discloses a process (Fujita [0032]-[0037]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed component (applicant’s specification 15:10 to 16:28, claims 14-17). Therefore, the properties of the inventive steel, including the B content in the steel at a depth of 140 – 220 um being ≥ 80 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the surface are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Where applicant claims composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPEP 2112(III).
Regarding claim 4, the B content in the steel at a depth of 140 – 220 um being ≥ 90 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the surface has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19). The prior art also discloses a process (Fujita [0032]-[0037]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed component (applicant’s specification 15:10 to 16:28, claims 14-17). Therefore, the properties of the inventive steel, including the B content in the steel at a depth of 140 – 220 um being ≥ 90 % of the B content in the steel at a depth of 500 um, wherein the depth is measured perpendicular to the surface are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Where applicant claims composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPEP 2112(III).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita discloses the steel comprises a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19).
Element
Claim 6 wt%
Fujita Table 1 No. 19
C
0.30 to 0.46
0.35
Si
0.01 to 0.60
0.08
Cr
0.3 to 1.3
1.05
V
0.005 to 0.35
0.15
B
0.0012 to 0.0050
0.0014
Al
0.02 to 0.25
0.044
N
0.0020 to 0.0150
0.0044
Ti
0.014 to 0.060
0.055
Zr
0.0050 to 0.0500
0.037
Regarding claim 8, Fujita discloses (Zr + Ti + Al) / N is in a range from 2.7 to 150 (30.9; (0.037 + 0.055 + 0.044) / 0.0044) (Table 1 No. 19).
Regarding claim 9, the constituent made of steel having a Vickers hardness at a depth of 30 – 100 um, preferably 40 – 120 um measured from the surface perpendicular to the surface of the constituent made of steel, which is less than 150 HV 0.3 below the Vickers hardness HV 0.3 of the constituent made of steel at a depth of 400 um has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel. The prior art discloses a composition that falls within the scope of that claimed (Fujita Table 1 No. 19). The prior art also discloses a process (Fujita [0032]-[0037]) that is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed component (applicant’s specification 15:10 to 16:28, claims 14-17). Therefore, the properties of the inventive steel, including the constituent made of steel having a Vickers hardness at a depth of 30 – 100 um, preferably 40 – 120 um measured from the surface perpendicular to the surface of the constituent made of steel, which is less than 150 HV 0.3 below the Vickers hardness HV 0.3 of the constituent made of steel at a depth of 400 um are anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Where applicant claims composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. “There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102.” MPEP 2112(III).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita discloses the component is a fastening means selected from the group consisting of screws, nuts, rivets, bolts and chains (bolt) ([0001], [0007], [0031]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita discloses the steel makes up at least 90 wt.% of the component (the steel makes up 100% of the bolt) ([0032]-[0037] and/or the component has a tensile strength according to ISO 898-1:2021 of ≥ 800 MPa (1470 N/mm2, 1 N/mm2 = 1 MPa) (Table 3 No. 19).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fujita (JP 2007-031746 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by Smithell (29 Heat treatment. Smithells Metals Reference Book. Gale and Totemeier, eds. Elsevier and ASM International. 2004. 29-1 to 29-33.).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita discloses the microstructure of the steel is ≥ 90% by volume bainite and/or martensitic after tempering (heating and quenching for hardening followed by tempering reads on a bainitic and/or martensitic microstructure after tempering because quenching steel for hardening forms bainite and/or martensite) (Fujita [0033]-[0037]) (the most common transformation products that form from austenite in quench-hardenable steels in order of formation with decreasing cooling rate are martensite and bainite) (Smithell 29.2.2 Transformation in steels pp. 29-1 to 29.3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (JP 2007-031746 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Fujita discloses the steel consists of unavoidable impurity that amounts to ≤ 0.01 wt.% ([0005], [0028], Table 1 No. 19). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, the example composition of Fujita includes 0.30 mass% Mo (Table 1 No. 19) and is silent to the remaining elements listed elements joined by the conjunction “and/or” recited in pending claim 7.
Fujita discloses 0.15 to 0.45 mass% Mo ([0022]) and Cu and/or Ni of 1 mass% or less ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Fujita to vary the Mo content from 0.15 to 0.45 mass% to improve hardenability and suppress oxidation at grain boundaries and to increase tempering softening resistance and ensuring strength to produce bolts high-strength bolts with excellent delayed fracture resistance without adding large amounts and increasing cost by also adding appropriate amounts of Zr and Al and Ti ([0022]).
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Fujita to include Ni and/or Cu less than 1 mass% total because Cu effectively enhances corrosion resistance and suppressed hydrogen intrusion, which negatively affects delayed fracture, and Ni increases toughness and hardenability and improves corrosion resistance and suppressed hydrogen intrusion, without adding too much Cu to degrade steel toughness or too much Ni to lead to saturation and increased cost ([0029]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Related Art
JP ‘811 (JP H05-255811 machine translation)
JP ‘811 discloses a steel for bolts and nuts ([0001], [0006]) with a composition ([0007]-[0012], [0015]-[0034]), including a relationship between N, Zr, Ti, and B ([0014], [0032]), that falls within that claimed (Table 1 Ex. J). JP ‘811 discloses a quenched and tempered steel structure ([0035]-[0039]).
Element
Claim 1 wt%
JP ‘811 Table 1 Ex. J
JP ‘811
JP 811
C
0.30 to 0.50
0.34
0.30 to 0.50
[0018]
Mn
0.05 to 1.3
0.73
0.40 to 1.50
[0020]
P
0.001 to 0.015
-
-
-
S
0.001 to 0.015
-
-
-
Si
0.01 to 0.8
0.35
1.2 or less
[0019]
Cr
0.3 to 1.5
0.90
0.45 to 1.50
[0021]
V
0.005 to 0.40
0.09
0.01 to 0.25
[0024]
B
0.0008 to 0.0050
0.0007
0.0003 to 0.0050
[0032]
Al
0.02 to 0.35
0.039
0.005 to 0.10
[0030]
N
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.0072
0.005 to 0.030
[0031]
Ti
0.01 to 0.08
0.030
0.005 to 0.10
[0028]
Zr
0.0030 to 0.0800
0.028
0.005 to 0.15
[0029]
Mo
-
0.50
0.40 to 1.00
[0022]
W
-
0.19
0.05 to 0.8
[0023]
Nb
-
0.051
0.005 to 0.15
[0025]-[0027]
Ni
-
0.32
0.01 to 0.60
[0033]
Cu
-
0.18
0.05 to 0.60
[0034]
Namimura (JP 2004-084010 machine translation)
Namimura discloses high-strength bolts ([0001]) with an overlapping composition, including a relationship between C, Mo, Ti, and V ([0015]-[0047]) and a quenched and tempered microstructure ([0048]-[0049]).
Element
Claim 1 wt%
Namimura mass%
Namimura Disclosure
C
0.30 to 0.50
0.35 to 0.55
[0022]
Mn
0.05 to 1.3
0.1 to 0.8
[0033]
P
0.001 to 0.015
0.02 or less
[0038]
S
0.001 to 0.015
0.02 or less
[0039]
Si
0.01 to 0.8
0.2 or less
[0034]
Cr
0.3 to 1.5
0.27 to 0.5
[0028]-[0029]
V
0.005 to 0.40
0.10 to 0.15
[0024]-[0027]
B
0.0008 to 0.0050
0.003 or less
[0047]
Al
0.02 to 0.35
0.5 or less
[0035]
N
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.02 or less
[0040]
Ti
0.01 to 0.08
0.010 to 0.15
[0024]-[0027]
Zr
0.0030 to 0.0800
0.5 or less
[0045]
Mo
-
0.50 to 1.50
[0023]
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights