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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuto et al. (US 2015/0376730 A1) herein Shuto.
Regarding claim 1:
Shuto discloses a steel sheet [0001, Shuto] comprising a composition shown below in Table 1 and a microstructure shown below in Table 2. The examiner notes that the overlap of the compositions and microstructures of the instant claim and Shuto is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that while Shuto does not specify (Si+Cr)/2C the examiner notes that this merely further limits the silicon, chromium, and carbon ranges of the steel which still overlap with the ranges of Shuto. The examiner notes that while Shuto discloses that other microstructures may be included beyond the instantly claimed microstructures, they are not required and thus Shuto’s microstructure meets the limitation of “consisting”. See MPEP 2111.03(II).
Shuto discloses that the steel may be subjected to cold rolling [0153, Shuto].
Shuto does not specify a hardness ratio between the bainite and tempered martensite, however the examiner notes that the instant application discloses the difference in hardness between phases increases due to the production of large amounts of ferrite which can lead to the condition of 1.3 or less not being satisfied [144, instant spec]. The examiner notes that Shuto doesn’t require the presence of ferrite and so would not be causing large differences in hardness between the phases. The examiner submits that a hardness ratio of (HB/HTM) that overlaps with that instantly claimed hardness ratio would naturally flow from the steel of Shuto because Shuto discloses an overlapping composition and microstructure which would control the mechanical properties of the steel. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Table 1
Instant claims, weight%
Shuto, mass% [0027]
C
0.04-0.09
0.01-0.2 [0028]
Si
0.2 or less
≤2.5 [0029]
Mn
2.0-3.5
≤4.0 [0030]
Cr
0.3-1.2
0.01-2.0 optionally [0040]
Ti
0.03-0.08
Ti+Nb: 0.01-0.30 [0036]
Nb
0.01-0.05
Ti+Nb: 0.01-0.30 [0036]
B
0.0010-0.0050
0.0002-0.01 optionally [0042]
Al
0.01-0.10
0.001-2.0 [0033]
P
0.001-0.10
≤0.10 [0031]
S
0.010 or less
≤0.03 [0032]
N
0.010 or less
≤0.01 [0034]
Fe and impurities
Remainder
Balance [0036]
(Si+Cr)/2C
≥5
Table 2
Instant claims, area%
Shuto, volume%
Bainite
50 or more
Tempered martensite+lower bainite: ≥90% [0037]
Tempered martensite
20-40
Tempered martensite+lower bainite: ≥90% [0037]
Ferrite
Remainder
≤10% optionally [0081]
Shuto discloses an average diameter of either 10 µm or less, or 6 µm or less for an average crystal grain diameter [0038, Shuto], Shuto does not specify that this size is for a specific microstructure and so one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this grain diameter to apply to both bainite and martensite. The examiner notes that the overlap of the grain diameters of Shuto and the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, since Shuto was modified to have its bainite particle diameter to be 3um or less, its area fraction having a particle size of more than 3 um is 0, which meets the 5% or less limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Shuto discloses iron-based carbides with a major axis of 5 nm or more [0076, Shuto] and a number density of 1*106(pieces/mm2) or more, more preferably 10*106(pieces/mm2) or more [0097, Shuto]. The examiner notes that carbides are precipitates. The examiner notes that the overlap of the sizes and number densities of the precipitates of the instant claim and Shuto is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, Shuto teaches that increasing the feature of carbide number density serves to improve the toughness and strength of the steel [0096-0097, 0149, Shuto]. In other words, Shuto teaches carbide number density to be a result-effective variable, such that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase carbide number density to improve the toughness and strength of the steel. Therefore, it is not patentable to discover optimal/workable ranges of precipitate number densities when the general conditions of how precipitate number density affects the strength and toughness of steel is disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 4:
Shuto discloses a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more [0001, Shuto] and Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of Shuto show overlapping yield strengths. The examiner notes that the overlap of the strengths the instant claim and Shuto is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that yield ratios merely further limit the yield strengths and tensile strengths of the steel which still overlap with the strengths of Shuto.
Shuto does not specify a HER value, however the examiner notes that mechanical properties such as HER depend upon the composition and microstructure of an alloy, as discussed above the instant claims and Shuto disclose overlapping compositions and microstructures and so the examiner submits that an overlapping HER value would naturally flow from the steel of Shuto. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145.
Regarding claim 5, Shuto discloses the steel may be plated with zinc [0130, Shuto].
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al. (JP 2015196891 A, machine translation referred to herein as English equivalent) herein Azuma, in view of Shuto et al. (US 2015/0376730 A1) herein Shuto.
Regarding claim 1:
Azuma discloses a steel sheet [page 1, Azuma] comprising a composition shown below in Table 3 and a microstructure shown below in Table 4. The examiner notes that the overlap of the microstructures of the instant claim and Azuma is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that while Azuma discloses that other microstructures may be included beyond the instantly claimed microstructures, they are optional and not required and thus Azuma’s microstructure meets the limitation of “consisting”. See MPEP 2111.03(II).
The examiner notes that while Azuma does not specify (Si+Cr)/2C the examiner notes that this merely further limits the silicon, chromium, and carbon ranges of the steel which still overlap with the ranges of Azuma. Azuma does not disclose the use of boron, however the examiner submits it would have been obvious to use 0.0002-0.01 mass% of boron in view of Shuto. Shuto discloses that the use of boron contributes to achieving a microstructure of tempered martensite and lower bainite by delaying ferrite transformation, and further increases low-temperature toughness [0127, Shuto]. The examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 0.0002-0.01 mass% of boron in the steel of Azuma in order to promote formation of tempered martensite and lower bainite and increase low-temperature toughness as taught by Shuto. The examiner notes that the overlap of the compositions of the instant claim and Azuma modified by Shuto is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Azuma discloses that the steel may be subjected to cold rolling [page 16, Azuma]
Azuma discloses wanting a standard deviation for hardness of 15 HV or less [page 5, Azuma], the examiner notes this includes deviations of 0 which gives a hardness ratio between bainite and tempered martensite of 1, and so Azuma discloses a hardness ratio between bainite and tempered martensite that overlaps with the instantly claimed hardness ratio. Alternatively, the examiner notes that the instant application discloses the difference in hardness between phases increases due to the production of large amounts of ferrite which can lead to the condition of 1.3 or less not being satisfied [144, instant spec]. The examiner notes that Azuma doesn’t require the presence of ferrite and so would not be causing large differences in hardness between the phases. The examiner submits that a hardness ratio of (HB/HTM) that overlaps with that instantly claimed hardness ratio would naturally flow from the steel of Azuma because Azuma discloses an overlapping composition and microstructure which would control the mechanical properties of the steel. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and 2145. Alternatively, the examiner notes that the instant application discloses that if the hardness ratio is not satisfied, then it is impossible to achieve an HER value of 50% or more and a yield ratio of 0.8 or more [108, instant spec] and the examiner further notes that Azuma discloses an HER value of 50% or more [page 16, Azuma], a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more [page 1, Azuma] and discloses yield strengths in Tables 4-5 which overlap with the instantly claimed yield ratios, for example using A1 from Table 4 of Azuma gives a yield ratio of 910/1012=0.90, and so it is clear Azuma can satisfy the HER and yield ratio values that the instant application discloses are impossible to achieve without achieving the instantly claimed hardness ratio and so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect Azuma to have an overlapping hardness ratio with that instantly claimed.
Azuma modified by other references will herein be referred to as modified Azuma.
Table 3
Instant claims, weight%
Azuma, mass% [page 4]
C
0.04-0.09
0.01-0.20 [page 4]
Si
0.2 or less
≤2.50 [page 4]
Mn
2.0-3.5
≤4.00 [page 4]
Cr
0.3-1.2
0.01-2.00 optionally [page 12]
Ti
0.03-0.08
Nb+Ti: 0.01-0.30 [page 4]
Nb
0.01-0.05
Nb+Ti: 0.01-0.30 [page 4]
B
0.0010-0.0050
Not specified
Al
0.01-0.10
0.001-2.00 [page 4]
P
0.001-0.10
≤0.10 [page 4]
S
0.010 or less
≤0.03 [page 4]
N
0.010 or less
≤0.01 [page 4]
Fe and impurities
Remainder
Balance [page 4]
(Si+Cr)/2C
≥5
Table 4
Instant claims, area%
Azuma, volume%
Bainite
50 or more
Tempered martensite+lower bainite: ≥90% [page 5]
Tempered martensite
20-40
Tempered martensite+lower bainite: ≥90% [page 5]
Ferrite
Remainder
≤10% optionally [page 6]
Azuma discloses a diameter of 10 µm or less [pages 8-9, Azuma], Azuma does not specify that this size is for a specific microstructure and so one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this grain diameter to apply to both bainite and martensite. The examiner notes that the overlap of the grain diameters of Azuma and the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Additionally, since Azuma was modified to have its bainite particle diameter to be 3um or less, its area fraction having a particle size of more than 3 um is 0, which meets the 5% or less limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Azuma discloses iron based carbides with a major axis of 5 nm or more and a number density of 1*106(pieces/mm2) or more [page 5, Azuma]. The examiner notes that carbides are precipitates. The examiner notes that the overlap of the sizes and number densities of the precipitates of the instant claim and Azuma is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Alternatively, Azuma teaches that increasing the feature of carbide number density serves to improve the toughness and hole expandability of the steel [pages 8 and 15, Azuma]. In other words, Azuma teaches carbide number density to be a result-effective variable, such that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to increase carbide number density to improve the toughness and strength of the steel. Therefore, it is not patentable to discover optimal/workable ranges of precipitate number densities when the general conditions of how precipitate number density affects the strength and hole expandability of steel is disclosed in the prior art.
Regarding claim 4:
Azuma discloses an HER value of 50% or more [page 16, Azuma]
Azuma discloses a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more [page 1, Azuma] and discloses yield strengths in Tables 4-5 which overlap with the instantly claimed yield strengths and yield ratios, for example using A1 from Table 4 of Azuma gives a yield ratio of 910/1012=0.90.
Regarding claim 5, Azuma may use a zinc plating [page 13, Azuma].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest all of the newly amended claim limitations. The examiner disagrees based on the additional explanations given in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN J JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1177. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:30 AM - 3 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
JONATHAN JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights