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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation "containing more than 18 to 33% chromium" in line 4. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how an amount of chromium could be more than the claimed range (e.g., 25% is more than the lower limit of the range of 18%, but not the upper limit of 33%), or how such a limitation would differ from “containing more than 33% chromium”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the common process-related impurities" in line 8. The term “common process-related impurities” is not defined by the instant specification nor does the term have an established meaning in the art, thus the term is interpreted according to its plain meaning, however “common process-related impurities” is ambiguous as it is unclear which elements, compositions, phases, etc. would be considered “common process-related impurities”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "of similar type" in lines 9, 10, and 11. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the welded seams are similar to, or if “of similar type” refers to the welded seams being similar to each other. The claim is further indefinite as it is unclear what characteristics, properties, compositions, and/or welding techniques would be within the bounds of “similar type”, and which would not.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the heat-affected zones" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "of similar type" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the welded seams are similar to, or if “of similar type” refers to the welded seams being similar to each other. The claim is further indefinite as it is unclear what characteristics, properties, compositions, and/or welding techniques would be within the bounds of “similar type”, and which would not.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein… the entire component containing the welded seams is subjected… to annealing” in lines 2-4. The limitation is indefinite as parent claim 1 discloses wherein “only the welded seams… are subjected… to an annealing” in lines 11-13, making unclear how only the welded seams are subjected to annealing as required in the parent claim, if the entire component is subjected to annealing in the dependent claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "it is advantageous when" in lines 2-3. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitations following “it is advantageous when” are actually performed, or if they are merely optional or preferred, as the claim merely describes that such is advantageous and not where e.g., the steps positively performed.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the corrosion resistance” and “the “metal dusting”" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "metal dusting" in line 4. The limitation is indefinite as the quotations around “metal dusting” make unclear whether the metal dusting is actually resisted only something analogous to metal dusting is resisted, or whether any resistance against metal dusting is improved at all.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the parent material” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of chromium content.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of aluminum content.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of iron content.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "if necessary" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if formula (3b) is always used, used when a content of niobium is 0.0 to 1.1%, or is used by other criteria that make it “necessary” to incorporate a term for Nb into a formula for Fp.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "formula (3a) is supplemented" in line 3. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how formula (3a) is supplemented by formula (3b), (e.g., Fp is calculated according to formula (3b) instead of formula (3a), Fp is calculated by both methods, Fp is calculated using a combination of the formulas into a single formula, etc.).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of zirconium content.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of yttrium content.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of lanthanum content.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of cerium content.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of cerium mixed metal content.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of hafnium content.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of tantalum content.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of boron content.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of cobalt content.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the formula (4a)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "formula (4a) is supplemented" in line 3. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how formula (4a) is supplemented by formula (3c), (e.g., Fp is calculated according to formula (3c) instead of formula (4a), Fp is calculated by both methods, Fp is calculated using a combination of the formulas into a single formula, etc.).
Claim 19 recites the limitation "with a… content" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what material or composition is further defined by the claimed range of vanadium content.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "wherein the impurities are adjusted" in line 2. The limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the amount of impurities is actually lowered by some sort of treatment step, or if claim 20 merely sets forth maximum amounts of specific impurities for the impurities in the semifinished product of claim 1.
Claims dependent upon claims rejected above, either directly or indirectly, are likewise rejected under this statute.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattendorf (US 20150050182 A1) and Hattendorf II (WO 2017000932 A1, original document and machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hattendorf teaches an alloy (Abstract) that is used for manufacture of a strip, sheet, bar, wire, seam welded pipe, seamless pipe (i.e., a method for the manufacture of a component) [0163], produced partly or entirely from a semifinished product of a nickel-chromium-aluminum alloy (Abstract, [0001, 0018, 0162]). Hattendorf teaches the alloy containing (in mass %) more than 18 to 33% chromium [0023], 1.8 to 4.0% aluminum [0023], 0.1 to 7.0% iron [0023], 0.001-0.50% silicon, 0.005-2.0% manganese [0023], 0.00 to 0.60% titanium [0023], 0.0002-0.05% magnesium and/or calcium [0023], 0.005-0.12% carbon [0023], 0.001 to 0.050% nitrogen [0023], 0.0001 - 0.020% oxygen [0023], 0.001 to 0.030% phosphorus [0023], max. 0.010% sulfur, max. 2.0% molybdenum, max. 2.0% tungsten [0023] which are all within the claimed ranges. Hattendorf teaches the rest of the alloy is nickel and usual process-related impurities (i.e., common process-related impurities) [0023]. As the amounts of chromium, aluminum, iron, silicon, manganese, titanium, magnesium, calcium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sulfur, molybdenum, and tungsten range from 19.9133-51.46 %, which would then comprise 48.54 – 80.0867 % nickel.
Hattendorf teaches amounts of 48.54 – 80.0867 % nickel. This overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to 50% nickel. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Hattendorf teaches wherein the component may be longitudinally seam-welded pipe [0163], which contains welded seams. As the seams of a longitudinally seam-welded pipe are arranged in a line, the welds are of similar type and/or the component is provided partly or completely with welded seams of similar type for installation in a plant as best can be examined in view of the rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Hattendorf teaches wherein Cr+ Al> 28 [0088-0089] and Fp < 39.9 where Fp = Cr + 0.272*Fe + 2.36* Al + 2.22*Si + 2.48*Ti + 0.374*Mo + 0.538*W - 11.8*C wherein Cr, Fe, Al, Si, Ti, Mo, W and C are the concentrations of the elements in question in mass % [0090].
Hattendorf teaches working the alloy into a semifinished product shape with annealing [0162], however Hattendorf does not teach how the semifinished product is actually formed into the manufactured components, or subjecting the component to an annealing.
Hattendorf II teaches a method for producing nickel-iron-chromium-aluminum alloy (Title, abstract), comprising chromium, aluminum, iron, silicon, manganese, titanium, magnesium and/or calcium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, nickel, and potentially phosphorous, sulfur, and tungsten [0019], where the alloy is formed into a semifinished product [0031] which may be formed into strip, sheet, bar wire, longitudinally welded tube and seamless tube [0037-0038], thus Hattendorf and Hattendorf II are analogous to the instant application as both relate to producing nickel-chromium-aluminum alloys that are formed into semifinished products before further processing into finished components. Hattendorf teaches after annealing and hot forming the alloy into semifinished products [0037], producing the strip, sheet, bar, wire, longitudinally welded tube, or seamless tube (i.e., the component), by cold forming with intermediate annealing between 700 and 1250 °C and for 0.1 min to 70 hours [0037], followed by cooling in air [0037]. Hattendorf II does not disclose annealing only e.g. certain portions of the component [0037], where annealing the component would be recognized by one of ordinary skill to intrinsically result in homogenization and/or reduction of stresses, thus Hattendorf II teaches wherein the entire component containing the welded seams is subjected, for homogenization of the welded seam and/or for reduction of stresses, which is within the scope of wherein, after welding, only the welded seams of similar type and the heat-affected zones are subjected as best can be examined in view of the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Hattendorf II teaches annealing between 700 and 1250 °C and for 0.1 min to 70 hours. This overlaps the claimed range of annealing between 980 and 1250 °C for times of 0.05 minutes to 24 hours. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Because Hattendorf is silent with respect to how the semifinished product is actually formed, in order to carry out the invention of Hattendorf one of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily look to the art for a reference teaching steps of producing the component suitable for use with the alloy of Hattendorf, such as that of cold forming with intermediate annealing as taught by Hattendorf II. As Hattendorf and Hattendorf II both relate to nickel-chromium-aluminum alloys that are formed into semifinished products before further processing into finished components, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the technique of Hattendorf II.
Hattendorf and Hattendorf II are silent to wherein creep strength and creep ductility of the welded seams are improved by annealing. However, page 10 of the present specification, discloses “an annealing between higher than 980 and 1250 °C for times of 0.05 minutes to 24 hours, followed by a cooling in stationary shield gas or air, moving (blown) shield gas or air, with the consequence that the creep strength and the creep ductility of the welded seams are improved by this annealing” in paragraph 1, in accord with the method as presently claimed. As Hattendorf and Hattendorf II discloses substantially the same process that Applicant states produces this feature, one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable assumption that the features of claims 1-2 would also occur when practicing the method of Hattendorf in view of Hattendorf II. See MPEP 2112 § (III-V) and 2112.01 § (I).
Regarding claim 3, Hattendorf in view of Hattendorf II does not teach grinding the welded seam or attaining a roughness value Ra of 0.01 to 15 µm. The Examiner notes however that such are considered optional as claim 3 does not positively recite that grinding of the welded seam occurs, and instead merely sets forward an advantageous step should such be performed, thus Hattendorf in view of Hattendorf II is considered to read upon 3 in its entirety.
Regarding claim 4, Hattendorf teaches a semifinished grain size of 5-600 µm, with a preferred range of 20-200 µm [0164].
Hattendorf teaches a grain size of 5-600 µm, with a preferred range of 20-200 µm. This overlaps the claimed range of 30 to 600 µm. The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art indicates substantial utility over the entire range disclosed therein, including that portion of the range which also falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 24 to 33% chromium [0023].
Regarding claim 6, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 1.8-3.2% aluminum [0023].
Regarding claim 7, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.1-4.0% iron [0023].
Regarding claim 8, Hattendorf teaches if necessary with an additional content of niobium with an upper limit of 1.1 % [0117], the formula (3a) is supplemented by a term for Nb: Fp = Cr + 0.272*Fe + 2.36* Al + 2.22*Si + 2.48*Ti + 1.26*Nb + 0.374*Mo + 0.538*W - 11.8*C (3b) and Cr, Fe, Al, Si, Ti, Nb, Mo, Wand Care the concentrations of the elements in question in mass% [0126].
Regarding claim 9, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.01-0.20% zirconium [0127].
Regarding claim 10, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.001-0.20% yttrium [0092].
Regarding claim 11, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.001-0.20% lanthanum [0098].
Regarding claim 12, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.001-0.20% cerium [0105].
Regarding claim 13, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.001-0.20% cerium mixed metal [0110].
Regarding claim 14, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.01-0.20% hafnium [0132-0133].
Regarding claim 15, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.001-0.60% tantalum [0134].
Regarding claim 16, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.0001-0.008% boron [136].
Regarding claim 17, Hattendorf teaches the alloy comprises 0.0-5.0% cobalt [140].
Regarding claim 18, Hattendorf teaches further containing at most 0.05% copper [0149], which is within the claimed range. Hattendorf teaches wherein the formula (4a) is supplemented by a term for Cu Fp =Cr+ 0.272*Fe + 2.36*AI + 2.22*Si + 2.48*Ti + 0.477*Cu + 0.374*Mo + 0.538*W -11.8*C (3c)
and Cr, Fe, Al, Si, Ti, Cu, Mo, Wand Care the concentrations of the elements in question in mass% [0149].
Regarding claim 19, Hattendorf teaches wherein the alloy comprises at most 0.5% vanadium [0151].
Regarding claim 20, Hattendorf teaches wherein the impurities are adjusted to contents of max. 0.002% Pb, max. 0.002% Zn, max. 0.002% Sn [0153-0155].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikolas T Pullen whose telephone number is (571)272-1995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571)-272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/NIKOLAS TAKUYA PULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
