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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/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 Furuya WO 2020/0136829 (as translated by USPA 2021/0222277).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Furuya discloses nickel containing steel plate having claimed composition and thickness (Table 1, Steel Ex. CE14; Table 3-1 Ex. CE14: 18 mm). Furuya teaches claimed retained austenite (Table 5-1, Ex. CE14: 2.4%), claimed tensile strength (Table 5-1, Ex. CE14: 771 MPa). Furuya does not expressly teach claimed maximum prior austenite grain size, claimed a/b ratio, or claimed yield strength. However, Furuya teaches that the average prior austenite grain size is 23 microns for this example (paragraph 26; Table 5-1, Ex. CE14). Thus, it would be expected that for any reasonable distribution of sizes that the claimed maximum value of 22 to100 microns would be obtained or substantially obtained, including for normal distribution or log-normal distribution. Applicant explains that steel suitable for LNG applications needs claimed yield strength. See Specification (paragraph 65). This is the same application Furuya contemplates for Furuya’s steels (paragraph 2). Furuya teaches aspect ratio (Table 5-1, Ex. CE14: 1.2) and Charny impact values (Table 5-1, Ex. 5: 120J) that applicant demonstrates are desired for claimed articles. See Specification (Tables 2 and 3). The Specification teaches that claimed maximum prior austenite grain size and claimed a/b ratio are optimized as claimed so as to achieve low temperature toughness in the range that Furuya achieves. See Specification (paragraphs 59 and 57). Thus, it would be expected that the claimed articles encompass or substantially encompass those of Furuya since the parameters that are disclosed in Furuya are the same as or are correlated to what applicant teaches is needed and desired in low temperature toughness articles. Furthermore, Furuya’s method of manufacturing is very close to that used by applicant as claimed and characterized. The steel is heated to 1100oC and has a roll finishing temperature (Table 3-1; CR start temperature and Temperature before one finishing pass: “865oC” and “820oC”). This meets applicant’s preferred temperatures. See Specification (paragraph 74). Reheating occurs at 810oC, which is above Ac3, which is 748.4oC, using applicant’s formula, and below 900oC. See Specification (paragraph 80). Then, tempering occurs at 590oC (Table 4-1, Ex. CE14), which is in the desired range taught by applicant. See Specification (paragraph 83). Furuya does not mention rolling reduction requirements. See Specification (paragraph 76; and Claim 3). However, applicant’s Tables 2 and 3 show that low temperature toughness is what is not achieved by not meeting this criterion, but Furuya does obtain low temperature toughness. More generally, Furuya’s method is very similar to that used by applicant. Furuya’s articles furthermore meet and exceed the thresholds for low temperature toughness which applicant explains is the desired outcome for applicant’s process steps and motivates applicant’s preferred claimed structural features. There are no examples provided by applicant where low temperature toughness was obtained using preferred method and these parameters that are not expressly disclosed in Furuya are not obtained. For example, in the Specification Exs. 29 and 30 obtain good low temperature toughness and fail to meet some of these parameters, but they were tempered outside the advised range, unlike Furuya which tempers in the advised range. Thus, absent further evidence to the contrary, it would be expected that the claimed parameters not expressly disclosed in Furuya would nevertheless be expected to be the same as or substantially the same as those in Furuya were they to have been ascertained since so many specified claimed parameters are present, since the uses to be put are comparable, since the process steps are very similar to the extent disclosed, and since, where applicant’s evidence demonstrates failure to obtained claimed values, what caused those failures is not present in how Furuya prepared Furuya’s steels. Regarding Claim 2, CE14 meets claimed Cu requirement (Table 1, Steel Ex. CE14: 0.20 wt. % Cu). Other examples in the tables also read on and/or suggest the claims (CE15; CE18; CE19; CE22; CE24; and CE25).
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 112, paragraph (b) rejection of the Office Action mailed on 18 March 2026. Rejections are withdrawn.
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 102/103 rejection over Furuya of the Office Action mailed on 18 March 2026. Applicant argues that Furuya fails to teach and teaches away from claimed prior austenite grain size in view of amended range. It is noted that Furuya reports average prior austenite grain size, whereas applicant claims a maximum. Thus, for any steel, it would be expected that there is a range of prior austenite grain sizes in Furuya’s steels that lead to reported average. Thus, for example, for a reported average value of 20 microns there could be maximally sized grains in the range of 22 to 100 microns. Furthermore, Furuya teaches, as comparative examples, average values of 22, 23, and 25 microns, for which it would inherently be expected that maximally sized grains would be in the claimed range that resulted in the reported average. Therefore, while the previously relied upon example may not teach or suggest the claimed steels, the revised rejection points out other examples that would be expected to. Rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights