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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites “the steel material according to claim 1, comprising” which fails to further limit claim 1, which recites “a steel material consisting of.” The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including" or "containing," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. The transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim. See MPEP 2111.03. Claim 2 allows for additional elements not recited in claim 1 and thus fails to further limit claim 1. Examiner recommends language such as “the steel material of claim 1, further satisfying at least one of: ”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the steel material as recited. In particular, the closest prior art, Namimura et al. (JP 2004-84010), hereinafter “Namimura,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein, teaches a steel material with a chemical composition comprising, in mass%, C: 0.35-0.55%, Si: 0.2% or less, Mn: 0.1-0.8%, P: 0.02% or less, S: 0.2% or less, Cr: 0.27-0.5%, Mo: 0.50-1.50%, V: 0.10-0.5%, Al: 0.5% or less, N: 0.02% or less, Cu: 2% or less, Ni: 1% or less, B: 0.003% or less, Zr: 0.5% or less, W: 0.5% or less, Ti: 0.010-0.15%, Nb: 0.5% or less, and a balance of Fe and impurities (Abstract, [0022]-[0047]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed ranges. However, Namimura does not teach or adequately suggest wherein an area fraction of hard structure is 90% or more and a Vickers hardness is 220 to 400 HV; and a number density of cementite particles having an area of 0.0005 µm² or more in the hard structure is 4.0 pieces/µm² or more, a number ratio of the cementite particles having an area of 0.0005 to 0.0100 µm² among a plurality of the cementite particles in the hard structure is 50.0% or more, and a sample standard deviation of areas of a plurality of the cementite particles in the hard structure is 0.070 µm² or less, as required by claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is distinct over the teachings of the prior art.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (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 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights