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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11), drawn to a chuck, in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 9, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 5, it appears that “plurality passageways” should be – plurality of passageways--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, lines 11-12, the claim sets forth “wherein a hardened layer is disposed at a posterior face of the body that surrounds the posterior bore”. However, it is unclear as set forth in this limitation what is being set forth as surrounding the posterior bore, e.g., the body, the posterior face, etc.
The terms “about 0.2 millimeters” and “about 1.3 millimeters” in claim 2 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about 0.2 millimeters” and “about 1.3 millimeters” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given depth must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given depth must be in order to be excluded by the limitation. For example, given the lack of clarity as to the scope of the term “about 0.2 millimeters”, it is unclear if depths that are 0.1 mm are excluded by the claimed range set forth in claim 2, or whether depths that are 0.1 mm are included by the claimed range. For example, given the lack of clarity as to the metes and bounds of the term “about 1.3 millimeters”, it is unclear as claimed whether depths that are 1.6 millimeters are included by the claimed range, or whether depths of 1.6 millimeters are instead excluded by the claimed range.
The terms “about 0.5 millimeters” and “about 1 millimeter” in claim 3 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about 0.5 millimeters” and “about 1 millimeter” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given depth must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given depth must be in order to be excluded by the limitation. For example, given the lack of clarity as to the scope of the term “about 0.5 millimeters”, it is unclear if depths that are 0.3 mm are excluded by the claimed range set forth in claim 3, or whether depths that are 0.3 mm are included by the claimed range. For example, given the lack of clarity as to the metes and bounds of the term “about 1 millimeter”, it is unclear as claimed whether depths that are 1.3 millimeters are included by the claimed range, or whether depths of 1.3 millimeters are instead excluded by the claimed range.
In claim 6, the claim sets forth “wherein the hardened layer extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface with the drive shaft”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as “with the drive shaft”. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to mean “wherein the hardened layer extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface,” (along) “with the drive shaft” (meaning that the hardened layer extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface, and the hardened layer also extends around a portion of the drive shaft), vs. whether such is instead intended to mean “wherein the hardened layer extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface” (for engaging or that engages) “with the drive shaft” (meaning that the hardened layer extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface, which engaging surface has an intended use of engaging with the drive shaft), vs. something else entirely.
The terms “about HRC 30” and “about HRC 52” in claim 7 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about HRC 30” and “about HRC 52” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be excluded by the limitation.
The terms “about HRC 25” and “about HRC 55” in claim 8 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about HRC 25” and “about HRC 55” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be excluded by the limitation.
The terms “about HRC 35” and “about HRC 50” in claim 9 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about HRC 35” and “about HRC 50” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be excluded by the limitation.
The terms “about HRC 30”, “about HRC 52”, “about HRB 70”, and “about HRB 100” in claim 10 are each a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “about HRC 30”, “about HRC 52”, “about HRB 70”, and “about HRB 100” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how close to the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be included by the term “about”, vs. how far away from the claimed value(s) a given hardness must be in order to be excluded by the limitation.
The term “medium” (in the limitation “medium-carbon steel”) in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “medium”/”medium-carbon steel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is noted that the specification teaches (in paragraph 0053) that the material used to form the body 200 “may be, for example a medium-carbon steel or high-carbon steel” and also teaches the following (also in paragraph 0053):
A medium-carbon steel may be a steel alloy that has a carbon content between, for example, 0.26% to 0.60% by weight. A high-carbon steel may be a steel alloy that has a carbon content between, for example, 0.60% to 1% (possibly with a manganese content of 0.3% to 0.9%). According to some example embodiments, the material used for the body 200 may be steel #30, #35, #40, #45, #50, or #55. Alternatively, the material used for the body 200 may be 30Cr, 35Cr, 40Cr, or 45Cr steel. As the carbon content of steel increases, the material becomes stronger and harder. However, the material also becomes less ductile and more susceptible to cracking and fracture. As such, the use of medium-carbon steel in the context of a chuck body 200, according to some example embodiments, with example treatment processes applied to particular areas as described herein, has been shown to decrease run-out by having harder portions of the body 200 in particular locations while permitting other portions of the body 200 to still be relatively ductile and thus more fracture resistant. With that said, high-carbon steel has also showed similar benefits, however, with some increase in the risk of cracking or fracture.
It is noted that the teaching that a medium-carbon steel “may” be a steel alloy that has a carbon content “between, for example, 0.26% to 0.60% by weight” merely provides an “example” of carbon content by weight that “may” (i.e., or may not) be considered a medium-carbon steel. Note that thus, it does not appear that a medium-carbon steel is limited to a carbon steel that has between 0.26% to 0.60% by weight of carbon, such that the full scope/extent of what constitutes a steel that is a “medium-carbon steel” to meet claim 11 is unclear, as it is unclear whether carbon steel having a value of carbon content by weight that is at outside of the example range 0.26% to 0.60%, such as 0.2%, meets the claim limitation, or is instead excluded by the claim limitation. It is also unclear as to whether a carbon steel having a carbon content of 0.60% is considered a medium-carbon steel, or whether such is instead considered a high-carbon steel, given the teachings of paragraph 0053.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0053773 to Rohm (hereinafter, “Rohm”).
Rohm teaches a chuck (1) (see Figure 1 and at least paragraphs 0012 and 0021, for example) for use with a powered driver (the drive unit and/or spindle described in paragraph 0021) having a rotatable drive shaft (the spindle described in paragraph 0021), the chuck (1) comprising:
a plurality of jaws (8) (see Figures 1-6 and at least paragraphs 0008, 0021, and claim 1 of Rohm, for example);
a body (2) (see at least Figures 1-9 and paragraphs 0021-0023, for example) comprising a “forward” bore (5) (see at least Figures 1, 8, 9, 5, and paragraph 0021, for example), a plurality of passageways (10) (see at least Figures 1, 8, 9, 2, and paragraph 0021 and claim 1 of Rohm, for example), and a “posterior” bore (3)(see at least Figures 3, 5, 8, 1, and paragraph 0021 and the “rear axially open mounting hole” set forth in claim 1 of Rohm); the “plurality passageways” (sic) (10) intersecting into the forward bore (5) (see at least Figures 8, 1, 4, as well as the abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0021, and claim 1 of Rohm) and the plurality of jaws (8) being movably disposed within the plurality of passageways (10) (see Figures 1-6, paragraphs 0012-0017, 0021, and claim 1 of Rohm, for example), the posterior bore (3) being disposed in a posterior “section” of the body (2) (see Figure 8, for example) and the posterior bore (3) being configured to receive the drive shaft to couple (via bolt 25) the drive shaft with the chuck (1) (see at least Figures 1, 3, 5, 8, and paragraph 0021, for example); and
a nut (13; see at least paragraphs 0021-0022 and Figures 1, 3, and 5, noting that element 13 is described as a rotatable ring that has an internal screwthread 12) “operably coupled” to the jaws (8) (via teeth 11 of jaws 8; see Figures 1, 3, and 5, as well as at least paragraphs 0021) such that rotation of the nut (13) relative to the body (2) moves the jaws (8) relative to the body (8) in an opening or closing direction (see Figures 1, 3, and 5, as well as at least paragraphs 0012, 0014, 0016, and 0021 and claim 1 of Rohm, for example);
wherein a hardened layer (see paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024) is disposed at a “posterior” face (such as, for example, the face labeled in the annotated reproductions of Figures 1 and 8 below as “PF”) of the body (2) that surrounds the posterior bore (3) (see Figures 1 and 8, for example) (paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 teach that *all* external and internal surfaces 23 of 2 are nitrided and hardened by a nitrocarburizing process; see also claims 1-2 of Rohm and paragraphs 0008-0010, 0023-0024, and the abstract), the hardened layer having a hardened layer depth to a transitional interface with an internal region of the posterior section (again noting that paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 teach that all of the internal and external surfaces 23 of the chuck body 2 are nitrided, i.e., surface hardened by a nitrocarburizing process, and thus, the hardened layer has a hardened layer depth to a “transitional” interface with an internal region of the posterior section);
wherein the hardened layer has a first hardness (i.e., a harder hardness) and the internal region has a second hardness (i.e., a softer hardness) (again noting that paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 teach that all of the inner and outer surfaces of the body 2 are nitrided, hardened and nitrocarburized; see also paragraphs 0008-0010);
wherein the first hardness is greater than the second hardness (again, noting that paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 teach that all of the outer and inner surfaces of the body 2 are nitrided, hardened, and nitrocarburized, and thus, the hardness of the hardened/nitrided/nitrocarburized surface portions is greater than the hardness of a deeper portion of the body 2).
[AltContent: textbox (PF)]
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
684
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (PF)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
700
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the posterior face (PF) and the hardened layer are ring-shaped. See Figures 1 and 8, for example, noting the ring-shape of the posterior race (PF) (particularly given the bore 3 therein). Furthermore, as noted previously, paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 and claims 1-2 of Rohm teach that all external and internal surfaces 23 are (i.e., surface) hardened by a nitrocarburizing process, and it is noted that the posterior face (PF) is an exterior surface of the body (2) that is thus nitrided and surface hardened by the nitrocarburizing. Thus, the hardened layer is likewise “ring-shaped”.
Regarding claim 5, the hardened layer is radially symmetric (such as at PF) about a central axis (9) of the chuck (1). See Figures 1, 7-8, and 9, and paragraphs 0008-0010, 0021-0024, and claims 1-2 of Rohm.
Regarding claim 6, the hardened layer (such as at PF, although any of the external and internal surfaces 23 of the body 2 likewise so extend) extends around at least a portion of an engaging surface (of spindle hole) with the drive shaft. See Figure 3, for example, as well as at least paragraph 0021, which teaches that 3 is a spindle hole adapted to be mounted on the spindle (i.e., drive shaft) of a drive unit for rotation of the body 2 about its axis 9. Furthermore, see at least paragraphs 0008-0010 and 0023-0024 and claims 1-2 of Rohm, noting that Rohm teaches that all internal and external surfaces 23 are surface hardened via the nitriding and nitrocarburizing process.
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7-11, as best understood in view of the above rejection(s) based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ®over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0053773 to Rohm (hereinafter, “Rohm”) in view of the Non-Patent Literature article from hef-durferrit titled “Tufftride®-/QPQ®-Process”, by Dr. Joachim Bosslet and Michael Kreutz, hereinafter, “NPL1”.
It is noted that ASTM Standard E140-12b, “Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, Scleroscope Hardness, and Leeb Hardness” is provided as evidence to support that the NPL1 teaches hardnesses within the ranges set forth in claims 7-10 (though the ATSM Standard E140-12b is not itself being used as a modifying reference).
It is similarly noted that the NPL Article “C45 Medium Carbon Steel Grade” by Engr. Waqas Imam is provided as evidence to support that NPL1 teaches “medium-carbon” steel, as set forth in claim 11 (though the “C45 Medium Carbon Steel Grade” article is not itself being used as a modifying reference).
Rohm teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejections based thereon.
Furthermore, it is noted that Rohm teaches that the chuck body 2 is made of steel. See at least paragraph 0021.
However, regarding claims 2-3, while Rohm expressly teaches that all of the external and internal surfaces 23 are hardened by a nitrocarburizing process, carried out by the salt-bath method as described in “Durferrit Nitrocarburieren Tenifer TF1-AB1 cin Warmbehandlungsverfahren mit vielseiteigen Anwentdungsmoglichkeiten” (G. Wahl; Hanau; 1995) (per paragraphs 0023-0024; see also paragraphs 0008-0010 and claims 1-2 of Rohm), and thus teaches that the internal and external surfaces of the body 2 are surface hardened, i.e., to a certain depth such that the outer portion is a higher hardness than a portion at a deeper depth beyond the hardened “layer”, Rohm does not expressly teach a value for the hardened layer depth, and thus does not teach such a depth that is within the ranges set forth in claims 2-3.
Additionally, regarding claims 7-10, while the fact that Rohm teaches that all of the internal and external surfaces 23 of the chuck body 2 are (i.e., surface) hardened via nitriding and a nitrocarburizing process does mean that there is an outer portion of higher hardness than the hardness of an inner portion, Rohm does not expressly teach a value for any of the hardnesses of the hardened steel chuck body (2), and thus does not teach that the first hardness is within the claimed ranges set forth in claims 7-10, nor that the second hardness is within the range set forth in claim 10.
Additionally, regarding claim 11, while Rohm expressly teaches that the chuck body (2) is made of steel (paragraph 0021), Rohm is silent about the particular type or composition of the steel, and thus does not expressly teach that the steel is “medium-carbon” steel, as set forth in claim 11.
However, attention is directed to NPL1.
It is noted that NPL1 is a document created by Durferrit GmbH (and it is noted that Durferrit was referenced in paragraph 0024 of Rohm) that provides discussion and teachings about a salt-bath nitrocarburizing process (see page 1 of NPL1). Furthermore, note that NPL1 teaches that the “TUFFTRIDE® process is known in Europe and German-speaking countries as TENIFER® (noting that TENIFER was referenced in paragraph 0024 of Rohm, and thus noting that any reference in NPL1 to TUFFTRIDE® is the same as referencing TENIFER®).
NPL1 teaches that salt-bath nitrocarburizing is used to improve wear resistance, fatigue strength, and corrosion resistance of components made from steel, cast iron, and sintered iron (page 1 of NPL1). During salt bath nitrocarburizing by the TUFFTRIDE® process, a nitrocarburized layer is formed consisting of the outer compound layer (ε-iron nitride) and the diffusion layer thereunder (see page 3 of NPL1). The formation, microstructure, and properties of the compound layer are determined by the base material (page 3, NPL1). The depth and hardness of the diffusion layer are largely determined by the material (page 4, NPL1).
Specifically regarding claims 2-3, NPL1 teaches that the total nitriding depth after TUFFTRIDE® treatment can be within the claimed ranges of “about 0.2 millimeters to about 1.3 millimeters” (re claim 2) and “about 0.5 millimeters to about 1 millimeter” (re claim 3). See Figure 5 and page 5, particularly noting the Total nitriding depths on the Y-axis of the graph for each of the graphed materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the claimed depth of Rohm be within the claimed ranges set forth in claims 2 and 3, as taught by NPL1, for the purpose of providing a nitrocarburized hardened portion that improves the wear resistance and fatigue strength, for example, as taught by NPL1 (page 1).
Specifically regarding the first hardness and claims 7-10, it is noted that Figure 3 shows the hardness of the compound (outermost hardened) layer for a variety of materials. As can be seen in Figure 3, the hardened surface layer can have a wide range of hardnesses, particularly depending on the material. It is noted that these hardnesses are shown in Figure 3 as Vickers hardness numbers. See page 3 and Figure 3.
That said, regarding claims 7 and 10, it is noted that a Rockwell C Hardness number of HRC 30 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 302, and that a Rockwell C Hardness number (HRC) of 52 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 544, as evidenced by Table 1 of the ASTM Standard E140-12b.
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, it is noted that a Rockwell C Hardness number of HRC 25 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 266, and that a Rockwell C Hardness number (HRC) of 55 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 595, as evidenced by Table 1 of the ASTM Standard E140-12b.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, it is noted that a Rockwell C Hardness number of HRC 35 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 345, and that a Rockwell C Hardness number (HRC) of 50 correlates with a Vickers hardness number (HV) of 513, as evidenced by Table 1 of the ASTM Standard E140-12b.
All that being said, it is noted that NPL1 teaches that for a martensitic layer on the materials C45 and X20Cr13 listed in the graph, the hardness for such martensitic layers is under 500 Vickers Hardness number (HV), and for the martensitic layer on C45, the hardness is just under 500 HV, as can be seen in the enlarged annotated reproduction of Figure 3 below.
[AltContent: textbox (X20Cr13)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C45)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
582
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
That said, the “first” hardness for a compound martensitic surface layer of C45 steel is within the claimed ranges set forth in claims 7-10 (see above discussion of the HRC/Vickers conversion re claims 7-10).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, it is noted that C45 steel is a “medium carbon” steel, as evidenced by the article “C45 Medium Carbon Steel grade”. See, for example, the second page of the “C45 Medium Carbon Steel grade” article, which states “[W]hat is C45 Material? C45 grade steel is defined as a medium carbon steel…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the steel of the chuck body of Rohm be C45 (which, regarding claim 11, is a medium carbon steel, as evidenced by the article “C45 Medium Carbon Steel grade”) and to have made the nitrocarburized layer (resultant from the nitrocarburizing process taught by Rohm in paragraphs 0023-0024, and taught by NPL1) being a martensitic layer having a (first) hardness that is within the claimed ranges set forth in claims 7-10, as taught by NPL1, for the purpose of providing a nitrocarburized surface that has improved wear resistance (pages 1, 3, 8, and 15 of NPL1) and improved fatigue strength (NPL1 on pages 1, 11, and 15), and high core strength (page 5, Figure 6, noting the core strength of C45W3 after hardening and tempering).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, while NPL1 does teach that the salt bath nitrocarburizing by the TUFFTRIDE® process results in a diffusion layer that is beneath the outer compound layer (page 3), and teaches that the hardness of the diffusion layer is largely determined by the material (page 4) or the rate of cooling after nitrocarburizing (page 4 of NPL1) (and thus teaches that the hardness of the diffusion layer is a result effective variable), NPL1 is also silent as to the value of the hardness of the diffusion layer (and also is silent as to the value of the hardness of the material that is at a deeper depth than the diffusion layer), and thus, NPL1 does not expressly teach a second hardness that is within the claimed range (about HRB 70 to about HRB 100). That said it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the second hardness (such as of the diffusion layer) be within the claimed range, noting that it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the teachings of Rohm in view of NPL1 such that the (second) hardness of (for example) the diffusion layer (taught by NPL1) was in the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the material and/or the rate of cooling after nitrocarburizing so as to, for example, improve the ductility of the nitrocarburized components (page 4 of NPL1) or improve the etchability (page 4 of NPL1), particularly since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, it is noted that the Non-Patent Literature Article “An Overview of Carbon Steel” indicates that the carbon content for medium-carbon steels is between 0.2% and 0.49%. The Non-Patent Literature Article “Types of Carbon Steels: Low, Medium, and High – What’s the Difference” indicates that carbon content for medium-carbon steels is between 0.3% and 0.5% carbon. The Non-Patent Literature Article “Low vs. Medium vs. High Carbon Steel – Key Differences & Properties” indicates that the carbon content for medium-carbon steels is approximately 0.30% to 0.60%.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights