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
Applicant’s claim to foreign priority in application no. JP2022-091192, filed June 3, 2022, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a ratio HVmin/HVmax of the minimum value HVmin to the maximum value HVmax” should be “a ratio HVmin/HVmax of a minimum value HVmin to a maximum value HVmax”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawata (US 20220154302 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawata discloses a high strength steel plate (Abstract; sheet reads on plate), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass %:
Element
Claim 1
Kawata, para. [0013]
C
0.02-0.20
0.05-0.18
Si
0.01-0.70
0.01-1.20
Mn
0.10-2.5
0.80-3.00
P
0-0.03
0-0.05
S
0-0.005
0-0.008
N
0.001-0.01
0-0.0125
Al
0.01-0.20
0.005-0.60
Ca
0.0005-0.005
0-0.010*
Ni
0.10-4.00
0-1.50
Cr
0.03-1.00
0-1.50
at least one of:
Mo
0.03-1.00
0-1.00
W
0.03-0.50
0-1.00
Nb
0.005-0.10
0-0.075
Balance
Fe+ impurities
Fe+ impurities
*0-0.010 total of at least one of Ca, Mg, Zr and/or REM
Kawata further discloses wherein the Vickers hardness ratio at a depth of ¼ thickness, or depth of 0.25mm for 1mm sheets, of HVmax to HVmin is preferably 1.25 or less, which equates to an HVmin/HVmax of 0.80 or more, and reads on the claimed range of 0.77 or more (Abstract; para. [0145]; para. [0147], 100gf equates to HV0.1; para. [0156], sheet thickness of 0.6-5.0mm; Table 2A-2D, thicknesses such as 1.00mm).
Regarding the limitation “for sour gas apparatuses”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111. 02.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 3 and Claim 6, Kawata further discloses the chemical composition containing, in mass %:
Element
Claim 2
Kawata
Citation para.
Cu
0.01-1.00
0-1.50, pref. 0.15-0.80
[0013]; [0084]-[0086]
At least one of:
Claim 3, Claim 6
V
0.005-0.1
0-1.00, pref. 0.03-0.20
[0013]; [0075]-[0077]
Ti
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.12
[0013]
Zr
0.0005-0.02
0-0.010*
[0013]
Mg
0.0005-0.02
0-0.010*
[0013]
REM
0.0005-0.02
0-0.010*
[0013]
*0-0.010 total of at least one of Ca, Mg, Zr and/or REM
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawata (US 20220154302 A1), as applied to Claims 1-3 and 6 above, respectively, in further view of Uchida (US 20110031779 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 5, Claim 7 and Claim 8, Kawata discloses wherein the steel sheet is used for automobile industries, but fails to disclose a steel pipe or tube (Abstract).
Uchida teaches high strength, impact resistant steel which is used as reinforcing members in the form of tubes and pipes for vehicle bodies in order to reduce the weight of the automobile (Abstract; para. [0009]-[0012], see also para. [0009], wherein reinforcing member is known to be either a steel sheet or a steel tube). Kawata similarly teaches reducing automobile weight and comprising high impact resistance (Kawata, para. [0003] and para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the steel of Kawata to be a tube or pipe, as taught by Uchida, because the steel of Kawata would be suitable for a vehicle body tube/pipe which requires high strength and high impact resistance, and can reduce the weight of an automobile (see teachings above). Additionally, a change in shape or form is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura (cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 22, 2024, EP 3859027 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimamura discloses a high strength steel plate (Abstract), comprising a chemical composition containing, in mass %:
Element
Claim 1
Shimamura, para. [0015]
C
0.02-0.20
0.02-0.08
Si
0.01-0.70
0.01-0.50
Mn
0.10-2.5
0.50-1.80
P
0-0.03
0.001-0.015
S
0-0.005
0.0002-0.0015
N
0.001-0.01
0.0034-0.0043 (see Table 1)
Al
0.01-0.20
0.01-0.08
Ca
0.0005-0.005
0.0005-0.005
Ni
0.10-4.00
0-0.10
Cr
0.03-1.00
0-0.5
at least one of:
Mo
0.03-1.00
0.01-0.50
W
0.03-0.50
Silent (0%)
Nb
0.005-0.10
0.005-0.10
Balance
Fe+ impurities
Fe+ impurities
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Shimamura further discloses wherein the Vickers hardness as measured by HV0.1 (100gf load) and at a depth of 0.25mm, is 230HV or less and comprises a variation 3σ of 30HV or less (para. [0040]-[0041]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the values for hardness (230 HV) +3σ and (230 HV) -3σ are extremely close to the HVmin and HVmax value, respectively. It is the examiner's position that the amounts in question are so close that it is prima facie obvious that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Therefore, it would be obvious that the steel of Shimamura comprises an HVmin (200) to HVmax (260) ratio of 0.769 or more, which reads on the claimed 0.77 or more.
Regarding the limitation “for sour gas apparatuses”, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111. 02.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 3 and Claim 6, Shimamura further discloses the chemical composition containing, in mass %:
Element
Claim 2
Shimamura
Citation para.
Cu
0.01-1.00
0-0.50
[0031]
At least one of:
Claim 3, Claim 6
V
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.1
[0035]
Ti
0.005-0.1
0.005-0.1
[0028]-[0029]
Zr
0.0005-0.02
0.0005-0.02
[0035]
Mg
0.0005-0.02
0.0005-0.02
[0035]
REM
0.0005-0.02
0.0005-0.02
[0035]
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 5, Claim 7 and Claim 8, Shimamura discloses a steel pipe or tube comprising the steel plate (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (JP 06235045 A, English Translation provided): teaches wherein the HV hardness maximum within 30mm of the surface (edge) of a sheet is 250HV or less, and wherein the difference between a minimum hardness and a maximum hardness within 30mm of the surface (edge) of the sheet is 30HV or less (Abstract). Within 30mm from the surface reads on 0.25mm, and a HVmin of 220 to an HVmax of 250 is a ratio of 0.88, which reads on the claimed 0.77 or more.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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 Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights