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
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office action based on the 18/718434 filed 06/11/2024.
Claims 1-11are pending.
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 6 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.
With respect to Claim 6, it is unclear what is meant by “ a quantity of the metal members is such that a degree of separation calculated in the quantification process.” Specifically it is unclear what a quantity is as this could mean absolutely any minuscule part of the metal, is “such that,” but it still unclear how one would make any part “such that,” it has the claimed degree of separation is 1.4 or more. Correction is required to clear up.
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 non-obviousness.
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 & 11 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by BENNET in US 3305318 in view of CAO in US 20200150025.
With respect to Claim 1, BENNET teaches of a method for determination of the carbon content of steel (Col 1, lines 17-19) in a pin, drillings, or a solid chunk(this can be considered the instantly claimed composite member). BENNET teaches that although they teach primarily with respect to steel, that the method is also well suited to carbides which are also combustible (Col 6, lines 5-8).
Therefore, BENNET teaches of performing a combustion process in which carbon steel is heated together with a composition member. Specifically, BENNET teaches of placing a one gram sample of a pin (steel) is placed in a crucible along with an accelerator which can be another metal like tin, and then the loaded crucible is placed in a combustion apparatus, wherein the sample (steel and tin together) is burned/heated/oxidized in the presence of oxygen (Col 1, lines 61-72). Again- though BENNET focuses teachings on using steel (carbon steel) they note that this message can be used for carbides (Col 6, lines 5-8).
BENNET further teaches that during the above combustion, that solid oxides are formed, but also that the carbon in the sample is converted to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxides are formed and that by determining the quantity of carbon dioxide allows you to determine the quantity of original carbon- so using a quantification process as claimed to do this (Col 2, lines 1-15).
BENNET teaches of placing a one gram sample of a pin (steel) is placed in a crucible along with an accelerator which can be another metal like tin ( so tin is mixed with the steel making a composite material having two or more members having components different from eachother so including a tin metal and also Fe/iron which is the main component of steel (Col 1, lines 61-72).
Again- though BENNET teaches of using steel (carbon steel) they note that this message can be used for carbides (Col 6, lines 5-8).
BENNET does not call out that the composite material is a carbide though specifically.
CAO is used to remedy this teaches of a method for determining/quantifying the total carbon content in carbon steels and to predict their susceptibility to corrosion. This includes measuring the quantity of carbides (abstract).
CAO teaches that from the carbides, in the sample the carbon content is determined (paragraph 0013, Figure 13, 0025, Fig. 8, paragraph 0018, 0062, 0090, 0106).
CAO further teaches that carbides are formed with iron and one or more of the alloying elements (which are other metals)(paragraph 0025), the alloying element including other metals like chromium (paragraph 0003-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use/test a composite material for testing, and specifically one which is an alloy containing two or more metal members as is done in CAO in the method of BENNET due to the need in the art for better knowledge of the rate at which alloying elements mixed with carbons undergo corrosion under corrosive conditions (CAO, paragraph 0006).
With respect to Claim 11, BENNET teaches of using steel (carbon steel) they note that this message can be used for carbides (Col 6, lines 5-8). BENNET does not specifically teach of the carbides being in steel however CAO is used to remedy this.
CAO teaches of carbides being present and needed to measure in steels (abstract). It would have been obvious to measure the carbon in carbides in steel as is done in CAO in the method of BENNET due to due to the need in the art for better knowledge of the rate at which alloying elements mixed with carbons undergo corrosion under corrosive conditions (CAO, paragraph 0006).
Claims 2-5 & 10 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by BENNET in US 3305318 in view of CAO in US 20200150025 and further in view of JP H05256798A.
With respect to Claim 2, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the quantification of carbon in ppm.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of a method for analysis of carbon in a carbide forming material (abstract), and further teach of analyzing carbon to a lower limit of 10ppm (paragraph 0002) and specifically in compositions where the carbon content is 30 ppm or less, which reads on the claimed 200 ppm or less (paragraph 0026-0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to measure compounds at this ppm since many steels are know to have ppm of carbon as 30 or less (paragraph 0026-0034).
With respect to Claim 3, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of the metal members being a sheet material with a thickness of 0.10 mm or less.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of the carbon steel or carbide containing material being a sheet and the sheet being 0.5 mm thick (paragraph 0001 & paragraph 0026, figure 1 description). JP H05256798A also teaches though of a sheet made of carbide/Ti having a thickness of 100nm (abstract), which reads on the claimed thickness of 0.10mm or less and reading on the claimed, “composed of sheet material having thickness of 0.10 mm or less). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a metal sheet have the thickness claimed as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers in allowing for use of sampling steel sheets which sample squares can be cut out of ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0026).
With respect to Claim 4, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of wrapping the sheet material during the combustion process.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of the carbon steel or carbide containing material being a sheet (paragraph 0001 & paragraph 0026, figure 1 description). JP H05256798A also teaches though of a sheet made of carbide/Ti masking the entire surface with a metal plate (which reads on the claimed wrapping) as TI is deposited again in a wrapping layer and further heating to 880 degrees Celsius, which is combustion temperature for steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a combust as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers in allowing for diffusion of one metal into another ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0026, Figure 1 description).
With respect to Claim 5, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of measuring by infrared absorption.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of measuring the carbon amounts by coulometry and infrared absorption (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use infrared to measure combustion and carbon content as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers allows for a high accuracy of measurement of Carbon content ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0004-0012).
With respect to Claim 7, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of wrapping the sheet material during the combustion process.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of the carbon steel or carbide containing material being a sheet (paragraph 0001 & paragraph 0026, figure 1 description). JP H05256798A also teaches though of a sheet made of carbide/Ti masking the entire surface with a metal plate (which reads on the claimed wrapping) as TI is deposited again in a wrapping layer and further heating to 880 degrees Celsius, which is combustion temperature for steel. This temperature also falls in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a combust as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers in allowing for diffusion of one metal into another ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0026, Figure 1 description).
With respect to Claim 8, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of wrapping the sheet material during the combustion process.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of the carbon steel or carbide containing material being a sheet (paragraph 0001 & paragraph 0026, figure 1 description). JP H05256798A also teaches though of a sheet made of carbide/Ti masking the entire surface with a metal plate (which reads on the claimed wrapping) as TI is deposited again in a wrapping layer and further heating to 880 degrees Celsius, which is combustion temperature for steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a combust as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers in allowing for diffusion of one metal into another. Since the metal components diffuse into each other it means that the difference in their melting points is 550 degrees Celsius or more and 2400 degrees Celsius or less and the melting points are 500 degrees Celsius or more and 3000 degrees Celsius or less (JP H05256798A, paragraph 0026, Figure 1 description). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a combust and use melting points/differences thereof as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers in allowing for diffusion of one metal into another ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0026, Figure 1 description).
With respect to Claim 9, BENNET teaches of placing a one gram sample of a pin (steel) is placed in a crucible along with an accelerator which can be another metal like tin ( so tin is mixed with the steel making a composite material having two or more members having components different from each other so including a tin metal and also Fe/iron which is the main component of steel (Col 1, lines 61-72).
With respect to Claim 10, BENNET teaches of placing a one gram sample of a pin (steel) is placed in a crucible along with an accelerator which can be another metal like tin ( so tin is mixed with the steel making a composite material having two or more members having components different from each other so including a tin metal and also Fe/iron which is the main component of steel (Col 1, lines 61-72).
Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by BENNET in US 3305318 in view of CAO in US 20200150025 and further in view of JP H05256798A and further in view of STILLER in US 20160115600.
With respect to Claim 6, CAO and BENNET teach of the invention as shown above for Claim 1. They do not teach of measuring by infrared absorption.
JP H05256798A is used to remedy this and teaches of measuring the carbon amounts by coulometry and infrared absorption (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use infrared to measure combustion and carbon content as is done in JP H05256798A in the method of CAO and BENNET due to the advantage this offers allows for a high accuracy of measurement of Carbon content ( JP H05256798A, paragraph 0004-0012).
JP H05256798A does not teach of analysis of the peaks in relation to contaminants. STILLER is used to remedy this and teaches of methods of analysis of carbide and carbon compounds (abstract and title). STILLER further teaches of the spectra showing standard carbon peak and there being other peaks that are other forms or carbon such as carbides, but that can also be contaminants or undesired products and due to viewing separation (which can be a degree of separation as claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to measure and determine a degree of separation of peaks for measured compounds versus contaminants as is done in STILLER in the methods of JP H05256798A and CAO and BENNET due to the know difficulties with separation and purification of the carbon and carbide compounds and therefore the need to view separation(STILLER, paragraph 0487).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization wherehis 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights