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 .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed March 11, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 7 and 12 are amended. Claims 14-16 are newly added. No new matter has been added.
Claims 7 and 12 remain withdrawn, and newly added Claim 13 is withdrawn, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, Group II, directed to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 6, 2024.
Claims 1-2 and 5-16 are pending, and Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-11 and 14-16 are currently considered in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:The language of Claim 1 should be amended for improved reading. For example,
“a total area fraction, SC-enriched, of regions having a C concentration in a range of 0.6 to 1.3% and an adjacent region is formed of a specific upper bainite, is in a range of 0.1 to 2.0%, the regions are formed of plate-like γ, and the plate-like γ is defined as a retained γ having a plate-like form, the specific upper bainite, formed adjacently to the plate-like γ: having…”
might be amended to read
“a total area fraction, SC-enriched, of regions having a C concentration in a range of 0.6 to 1.3% and an adjacent region formed of a specific upper bainite, in a range of 0.1 to 2.0%, wherein the regions are formed of plate-like γ and the plate-like γ is defined as a retained γ having a plate-like form, and wherein the specific upper bainite, formed adjacently to the plate-like γ: has…”
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “SC-enriched, of regions having a C concentration in a range of 0.6 to 1.3% and an adjacent region is formed of a specific upper bainite…the regions are formed of plate-like γ, and the plate-like γ is defined as a retained γ having plate-like form, the specific upper bainite, formed adjacently to the plate-like γ…”. It is interpreted that the plate-like γ and the specific upper bainite together form upper bainite, and the claimed ‘specific upper bainite’ refers to the bainitic ferrite which is present between retained austenite in upper bainite (see explanation of upper bainite from Matsuda, US 20140242416 A, cited below; para. [0067]-[0070]). It is further interpreted that the 0.1-2.0% area fraction refers to both the plate-like γ and the adjacent specific upper bainite (bainitic ferrite), such that the upper bainite may be considered to be present in an amount of 0.1-2.0%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2, 5, 8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 4, 2021, US 20190071757 A) in view of Nozaki (previously cited, US 20140000765 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murata discloses a steel sheet having a chemical composition (para. [0049]-[0067]), wherein the chemical composition comprises:
Element
Claim 1 (mass%)
Murata (mass %)
Table 1, Ex. h
Citation
C
0.04-0.22%
0.15-0.35%
0.21%
[0049]
Si
0.40-1.20%
Si+Al = 0.5-2.5%; w/ Al <0.10%
0.81%
[0051]-[0053]
Mn
2.3-3.5%
1.0-4.0%
2.31%
[0054]
P
0-0.02%
0-0.05%
0.010%
[0056]
S
0-0.01%
0-0.01%
0.002%
[0058]
Sol. Al
<1.0%
<0.10%
0.03%
[0051]-[0053]
N
<.015%
Silent (0%)
Silent (0%)
-
Bal.
Fe + impurities
Fe + impurities
Fe + impurities
Abstract
Regarding the compositional ranges and inventive example ‘h’ of Murata, 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.
Murata further discloses wherein the steel has a microstructure comprising:
5-50% ferrite, which reads on the claimed range of 6-90% (Abstract, 5-50% by area ferrite),
30% or more by area of tempered martensite and bainite, and 10% or more by volume of retained austenite, which reads on the claimed 10-94% by area of constituent, wherein the constituent comprises 3-15% by volume of retained austenite and at least one of upper bainite, fresh martensite, tempered martensite and lower bainite (Abstract), and
wherein, of the retained austenite grains, 5% or more comprise a diameter of 1.5um or more, which equates to 0.5vol% or more (i.e., 5% of the 10% or more total retained austenite) of the entire microstructure and reads on the claimed 5vol% or less of total area fraction SγBlock comprised of (ii) retained austenite (γ) grains having an equivalent circular grain diameter in a range of 1.5-15µm (Abstract; para. [0036]; 5vol% ratio of a total retained austenite amount of 10% is 0.5% of entire microstructure).
Further, Example “h” of Murata comprises 17 area% ferrite, 57 area% tempered martensite/bainite, 26 area% martensite-austenite constituent, of which 13.7vol% is retained austenite, which reads on the claimed ferrite, constituent and retained austenite amounts. Additionally, example ‘h’ comprises 4.7% of the total retained austenite with an equivalent circle diameter of 1.5um or more, which is within the claimed range SγBlock (ii) of 5% or less (Table 3, Ex.23 (formed from steel “h” – see Table 2-2); 57% tempered martensite/bainite and 26% martensite-austenite constituent gives a total of 83% constituent, which reads on the claimed 10-94% constituent; 4.7% of retained γ with 1.5um or more equivalent diameter reads on the claimed 5% or less of SγBlock).
Regarding the ranges of microstructural components and inventive example ‘h’ of Murata, 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.
Murata fails to disclose the claimed aspect ratio of the SγBlock retained austenite grains. Additionally, while Murata discloses wherein regions of carbon-condensed austenite are formed around bainite (para. [0095]), Murata fails to disclose regions with carbon-condensed austenite with adjacently formed specific upper bainite (the claimed SC-enriched regions), or amounts of upper bainite (see claim interpretation above wherein Sc-enriched regions are interpreted to refer to the amount of upper bainite).
Murata also fails to disclose wherein prior γ in a surface layer has a grain diameter of 2-12µm.
Murata discloses wherein the steel comprises a tensile strength of 780-1300MPa, and overlaps the claimed range of 590-1319MPa (para. [0071]; Table 4, no. 23 representative of example ‘h’ of Murata comprises a tensile strength of 1105MPa)
Murata also discloses a hole expansion ratio (λ) of 20-60% and range of TS*EL, wherein EL is total elongation; however, Murata fails to disclose a range for uniform elongation or for TS*U.EL.
However, these microstructural features and mechanical properties would necessarily result from the processing of the instant invention (see instant specification, para. [0038]), of which is taught by Murata in view of Nozaki (see explanation below).
Murata discloses:
hot rolling and cold rolling:
hot rolling a steel slab and one having the composition “h” at an accumulated rolling reduction ratio of 91.7%, which reads on the instant amount of greater than 40% (para. [0112], hot rolling a 30mm slab to 2.5mm, a 91.7% reduction);
finish rolling the hot rolled steel slab to form a steel sheet (para. [0112], multistage rolling to a finish temperature of 880°C); and
after finish rolling, cold rolling the sheet with a reduction of 44%, which reads on the instant cold rolling ratio range of 40 to 85% (para. [0012], cold rolling a 2.5mm sheet to 1.4mm, a 44% reduction).
annealing and first cooling after cold rolling:
subsequently annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet at an annealing temperature of T1 (Ac1*0.8+Ac3*0.2) to less than Ac3, such as 780°C for composition ‘h’, which reads on the instant invention range of 780-880C (para. [0085]-[0087]; see Ex. 23, using steel “h”, Table 2-2);
cooling the annealed steel sheet from the temperature T1 to the temperature T2 (650C or higher) at a cooling rate up to 10C/s, and then cooling from T2 to a cooling stop temperature T3a of 300-500C at a cooling rate of 40-100C/s and holding for 10-300s, preferably 50-200s, (see para. [0098], retaining at a cooling rate of 0C/s), including cooling composition ‘h’ from 780C to 700C at a cooling rate of 10C/s and cooling from 700C to 400C at a cooling rate of 40C/s and holding at 400C for 50s, which reads on the instant cooling step requiring a cooling rate of 7-2000C/s in the temperature range of 750 to 495C and holding in the range of 405-495C for 13-200s (para. [0089]-[0098]; Example 23, using steel “h”, Table 2-2).
Regarding the range 300-500C, the range overlaps the instant range of 405-495C. Additionally, the holding temperature 400C of composition ‘h’ and ex. 23 (see table 2-2) is very close to 405C, such that it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the holding temperature 400C would result in the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
second cooling after holding at 405-495C:
further cooling the annealed steel sheet from the previous temperature (300-500C or T3a/T3b) to a temperature T4 of 100-300C at a cooling rate of 20Cs or more and holding for 1-600s, including cooling composition ‘h’ from 400C (T3a/T3b) to 200C at a cooling rate of 30C/s and holding for 50s, which reads on the instant process requiring cooling from 405C to a temperature Tsq at an average cooling rate of 5-80C/s, wherein Tsq is defined according to instant equations (A) and (B) (instant specification, para. [0038], equations (A) and (B); see Murata para. [0101]-[0104]; see Example 23, using steel “h” in Table 2-2; composition ‘h’ according to equation (A) comprises an Ms temperature of 334.8C, and therefore 200C reads on the Tsq range (equation B) of 154.8-384.8C).
reheating and cooling:
reheating from temperature T4 (100-300C; Tsq) to a temperature T5 of 300-500C, at a heating rate of 30C/s, and holding for 50-1200s before cooling to room temperature, including heating composition ‘h’ from 200C to a temperature 400C at a rate of 30C/s, holding for 300s, and subsequently cooling to room temperature, which reads on the instant process of reheating from the cooling stop Tsq temperature (T4 of Murata) to a temperature range of 350-590C at a rate of 2C/s, holding for 20-3000s, and then cooling to room temperature (para. [0105]-[0109]; Example 23, using steel “h”, Table 2-2; para. [0112], average heating rate HR2 set to 30C/s from T4 to T5).
An annotated Figure 1 of Murata is further provided below to map the instant heat treatment to that of Murata.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
1016
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – An annotated figure showing how the instant heat treatment is mapped to the heat treatment of Murata.
Regarding the hot rolling and cold rolling, Murata does not teach wherein the accumulated hot rolling reduction of 40% or more is specifically within the temperature range of 950°C to 1100°C, and does not disclose wherein after finish rolling, the steel is cooled to a temperature of 520C or lower at a cooling rate of 5C/s or more and coiled at a temperature of 350-520C. Additionally, Murata discloses a cold rolling reduction by example of 44%, but does not teach a specific range for the cold rolling.
Nozaki teaches a high-strength steel sheet with a chemical composition which overlaps the instant composition and the compositional ranges of Murata (Nozaki, Abstract; Murata, Abstract). Nozaki further teaches a microstructure of 5-80% ferrite, 5-80% bainite, 2-30% retained austenite, 20% or less martensite (fresh) and 60% or less tempered martensite, which overlaps with the instant invention and the microstructure of Murata (Nozaki, Abstract; Murata, Abstract). See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Nozaki teaches hot-rolling at 1000-1200C, preferably 1000-1150C, with a reduction of 40% or more at least one time, which reads on the claimed range of 40% or more within the range of 950-1100C, in order to reduce the austenite grain size after rough rolling, thereby enhancing the hole expansibility (para. [0130]-[0132]).
Nozaki further teaches wherein an accumulated rolling reduction ratio in the temperature range of T1+30 to T1+200C is 50% or more, wherein T1 is calculated to be 850+10*(([C]+[N])*[Mn]) (para. [0018]). For example, T1 for composition ‘h’ of Murata would be 855C, such that between the range of 885-1055C, the accumulated rolling is 50% or more, which also reads on and overlaps the claimed range of 40% or more accumulated rolling within the temperature range of 950-1100C. Nozaki teaches that this hot rolling accomplishes a large amount of strain for promoting austenite recrystallization, which improves hole expansibility (para. [0138]-[0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have comprised a reduction of 40% or more in the temperature range of 1000-1200C, and an accumulated reduction of 50% or more in the temperature range of T1+30C to T1+200C (between 885-1055C for composition ‘h’), as taught by Nozaki, for the invention of Murata, and therefore comprised a hot rolling which reads on the accumulated rolling reduction ratio of 40% or more in the range of 950-1100C of the instant invention, in order to improve hole expansibility through the reduction of austenite grain size and through the promotion of austenite recrystallization by strain accumulation (see teaching above).
Nozaki further teaches cooling the steel at a rate of 50-200C/s to a temperature of 650C or less in order to suppress the growth of recrystallized austenite, and coiling at a temperature of 350-650C in order to avoid increases in anisotropy in the cold rolled steel which decrease hole expansibility, while suppressing the generation of martensite which increases the cold rolling load (para. [0157]-[0160]).
Nozaki also subsequently teaches cooling, pickling, and cold rolling with a reduction ratio of 30-90%, preferably of 40-80%, which reads on the instant invention ratio of 40-85%, in order to promote recrystallization and texture control of ferrite, thereby avoiding decreases in equiaxed grain fractions and grain coarsening after annealing, while balancing for anisotropy of the crystal orientation (para. [0161]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cooled the hot-rolled steel at a rate of 50-200C/s to a temperature of 650C or less and to have coiled the steel at a temperature of 350-650C, which reads on the instant invention steps of cooling to a temperature of 520C or lower at a cooling rate of 5C/s or more and coiling at a temperature of 350-520C, as taught by Nozaki, for the invention of Murata. One would be motivated to do this in order to suppress the growth of recrystallized austenite, in order to avoid increases in anisotropy in the cold rolled steel which decrease hole expansibility, and to suppress the generation of martensite which increases the cold rolling load (see teachings above).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cold rolled the steel sheet with a reduction of 30-90%, and preferably from 40-80%, which reads on the instant range of 40-85%, as taught by Nozaki, for the invention of Murata, in order to promote recrystallization and texture control of ferrite, thereby avoiding decreases in equiaxed grain fractions and grain coarsening after annealing, while balancing for anisotropy of the crystal orientation (see teaching above).
Therefore, with respect to the limitations including:
a total area fraction of SC-enriched- of 0.1-2%, wherein S C-enriched- is comprised of plate-like γ regions having a C concentration of 0.6-1.3%, and formed adjacent to a specific upper bainite region having a minor axis width in a range of 0.7 to 10µm, an aspect ratio of greater than 2.0, and a C concentration of 0.07% or less;
the SγBlock retained γ grains having an aspect ratio of 3 or less; and
the prior γ in a surface layer as having a grain diameter in a range of 2-12 µm,
a value (TS*U.EL-7000)*λ of greater or equal to 140,000,
the composition of Murata, the microstructural amounts of ferrite, constituent phase, and retained austenite of Murata, and the processing of Murata in view of Nozaki, are the same as claimed, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the resulting structure, and thereby mechanical properties, of the steel sheet of Murata as modified by Nozaki would be the same as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would necessarily flow that the above properties and limitations would result from the combination and be present in the invention of Murata and Nozaki.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 & MPEP 2145.
Regarding Claim 2, Murata discloses wherein the chemical composition further comprises at least one of Cu, Ni, Mo, Cr and B in a total amount of up to 1%, further, at least one of V, Nb, Ti, and Zr up to 0.2% or less in total, and further at least one of Ca, Mg and REM of up to 0.01% total, which reads on the claimed at least one of Group A (at least one of 0.002-0.1% Nb, 0.002-0.1% Ti and 0.0002-0.01% B), Group B (at least one of 0.005-1% Cu, 0.01-1% Ni, 0.01-1% Cr, 0.01-0.5% Mo, 0.003-0.5% V, and 0.005-0.2% Zr) and Group C (at least one of 0.0002-0.004% Ca, REM of 0.0002-0.004% Ce and 0.0002-0.004% La, and 0.0002-0.003% Mg) (para. [0062]-[0067]).
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 5 and Claim 8, Murata discloses wherein the steel sheet has a tensile strength of 780-1300MPa, which reads on the claimed range of 590-1600MPa (para. [0071]; see steel composition H and ex. 23 of Murata, Table 4, TS is equal to 1105MPa, which reads on the claimed range).
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 14, Murata is silent towards uniform elongation values; however, the composition of Murata, the microstructural amounts of ferrite, constituent phase, and retained austenite of Murata, and the processing of Murata in view of Nozaki, are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the resulting structure, and thereby mechanical properties, of the steel sheet of Murata as modified by Nozaki would be the same as the claimed invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention disclosed by Murata and Nozaki comprise the claimed uniform elongation of 8.0% or more.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 & MPEP 2145.
Regarding Claim 15, Murata is silent towards uniform elongation values and therefore fails to disclose the claimed values of TS*U.EL-7000; however, the composition of Murata, the microstructural amounts of ferrite, constituent phase, and retained austenite of Murata, and the processing of Murata in view of Nozaki, are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the resulting structure, and thereby mechanical properties, of the steel sheet of Murata as modified by Nozaki would be the same as the claimed invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention disclosed by Murata and Nozaki comprise the claimed TS*U.EL-7000 values of 160,000 or greater.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 & MPEP 2145.
Regarding Claim 16, the composition of Murata, the microstructural amounts of ferrite, constituent phase, and retained austenite of Murata, and the processing of Murata in view of Nozaki, are the same as claimed (see Claim 1 above), and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the resulting structure of the steel sheet of Murata as modified by Nozaki would be the same as the claimed invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the invention of Murata and Nozaki would comprise the claimed Sc-enriched feature of 0.5-2.0%.
When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 & MPEP 2145.
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 4, 2021, US 20190071757 A) in view of Nozaki (previously cited, US 20140000765 A1), as applied to Claims 1-2, 5 and 8 above, respectively, in further view of Hiroshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 4, 2021, WO 2018043456 A1, US 20190203315 applied for English equivalent and citation)
Regarding Claim 6 and Claims 9-11, Murata is silent to a galvanized layer being disposed on the surface of the steel sheet.
Nozaki teaches wherein a galvanized layer is disposed on the surface of the steel sheet ([0121]).
Hiroshi teaches that galvanized layers enable improved corrosion resistance (para. [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a galvanized layer disposed on the surface of the steel sheet, as taught by Nozaki and Hiroshi, in order to improve the corrosion resistance (see teaching above by Hiroshi).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed April 25, 2025, directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Murata in view of Nozaki have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments further defining the Sc-enriched region (see also new Claim interpretation above). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Murata in view of Nozaki, as detailed above.
Regarding the method of Murata and Nozaki:
Applicant argues that Sc-enriched regions are critical to forming the claimed uniform elongation, and that the method of Murata would be incapable of achieving this feature (Remarks, Pg. 9).
Specifically, Applicant argues that holding at 405-495C for 130-200s is necessary to form the claimed amount of Sc-enriched regions, and therefore a holding temperature of 400C as disclosed by Murata would not achieve the claimed amount of Sc-enriched regions (Remarks, Pg. 9).
This argument is not found persuasive.
The full disclosure of Murata teaches a range 300-500C, which overlaps the instant range of 405-495C. Additionally, Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence that 400C would not achieve the claimed effects, as Table 2-1 of the instant invention indicates that all examples (including comparative examples 5, example 14, 16 and 23 which are referred to in the Remarks - see Pg. 9) are held within the range of 405-495C. Therefore, there does not appear to be any data presented where a holding temperature of 400C is used to rebut the finding of inherency that Murata and Nozaki would comprise the claimed Sc-enriched feature.
Applicant further argues that Nozaki discloses a cooling rate of 20-200C/s for a first cooling, which is from a cooling start temperature after hot rolling to 40-140C below the cooling start temperature, and then a second cooling thereafter to coiling, and does not disclose a cooling rate or the entire duration from finish rolling to coiling (Remarks, Pg. 9).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Nozaki discloses wherein the cooling rate for the second cooling (to the coiling temperature) may be the same as described for the first cooling to obtain the same microstructural effects which the first cooling’s cooling rate achieves. Thus, Nozaki discloses a cooling rate, as described by details of the first cooling, of 50-200C/s from cooling initiation (from finish rolling) to the coiling (end of second cooling).
Applicant argues that comparative ex. 16 of the instant invention teaches overlapping ranges of Murata, and a hold time of 10s, but results in an Sc-enriched value outside the claimed range and therefore mechanical properties outside the claimed range.
Applicant argues that while Murata teaches a preferred range of 50s or more, this applies to a larger temperature range of 300-500C, and it is unknown what times Murata would desire for the range of 405-495C. Applicant argues it is improper to assume the preferred range can be applied to the claimed 405-495C to necessarily produce the Sc-enriched values.
This argument is not found persuasive.
The preferred range of Murata would apply to the full range, including 405-495C. Table 2-1 and 2-2 of Murata discloses gradual cooling times (i.e., retention times when cooling start and stop temperatures are equal) which are substantially all 50s or more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hiroshi (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 4, 2021, WO 2018043456 A1, US 20190203315 applied for English equivalent and citation, further teachings): teaches a high-strength steel sheet with a chemical composition and microstructure that lies within the instant composition and microstructure (Abstract; para. [0025]; and Tables 1, and 3, Example “A”).
Hiroshi teaches hot rolling a slab at a temperature of 1100-1300°C in order to balance increased rolling load and degraded productivity with cost (para. [0082]-[0083]), teaches a finish temperature up to 1000C, such as 950C, in order to reduce grain coarsening while balancing for microstructural uniformity, thereby avoiding degradation to ductility and hole expandability (para. [0084]-[0085]), cooling the steel sheet after hot rolling and finishing rolling to 500C or lower at an average cooling rate of 5°C/s or greater in order to avoid excessive ferrite and pearlite formation (para. [0084]; para. [0086]-[0087]; para. [0089]).
Matsuda (previously cited, US 20140242416 A): teaches wherein upper bainite is comprised of retained austenite which is formed between laths of bainitic ferrite (what applicant refers to as upper bainite), wherein a high concentration of 0.7-1.5% carbon in the retained austenite which forms upper bainite allows for high strength of 780-1400 MPA tensile strength, and also excellent formability (para. [0070]-[0072]).
Hasegawa (previously cited, US 20210062282 A): teaches wherein a total of upper bainite and ferrite is 60% or less in order to balance high strength with bendability (para. [0044]).
Koh (previously cited, US 20200332401 A): teaches upper bainite amounts of 5% or less in order to avoid reduced hydrogen induced cracking resistance (Abstract; para. [0060]).
Lee (previously cited, US 2020023877 A): teaches 5% or less of upper bainite in order to reduce grain size coarsening and avoid decreased impact toughness (para. [0059]).
Sakakibara (previously cited, US 20190161820 A1): teaches upper bainite existing as 10% or less in order to ensure strengths of 980MPa or more and to avoid low temperature toughness (para. [0111]).
Bhadeshia (previously cited, “Bainite”): teaches wherein the ferritic bainite in upper bainite consists of fine plates of ferrite, about 0.2um thick and about 10um long (i.e., aspect ratio of about 50), and comprises carbon concentrations of 0.02% or less in order to enrich the retained austenite (section 6.2, upper bainite, pg. 180 and pg. 183; Fig. 6.3(b)).
Kawata (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed April 4, 2024, US 20190003009 A): teaches a high-strength steel sheet with a chemical composition and microstructure that lies inside the instant composition and microstructure (Abstract; para. [0017]-[0035], and [0038]-[0043]; Table 1, Steel “N” – corresponding to Example No. 46 within Table 11).
Kawata teaches coiling at a coiling temperature in a range of 400-700°C I order to avoid the generation of coarse ferrite and fracturing during cold rolling (para. [0151]), and teaches using an average heating rate of 1°C/s or more during a reheating step which correlates to that of the instant invention from Tsq to a temperature of 350-590C, in order to enable fine carbides to develop within the martensite, thereby increasing impact resistance (para. [0186]).
Nozaki (applied above, US 20140000765 A1, further teachings): teaches a steel comprising (example F1) 0.144% C, 1.05% Si, 3.20% Mn, 0.012% P, 0.003 S, 0.0032% N, 0.04% Al, and a balance of Fe (Table 1, ex. F), with a microstructure of 20% ferrite, 55% bainite, 9% residual austenite, 9% fresh martensite and 10% pearlite, and a TSxEL of 17,000 MPa-% and a hole expansion ratio of 40%, and therefore (TSxEL-7000)*λ of 400,000 MPa-%2 (Table 13, F1).
Nozaki teaches (in addition to hot rolling, coiling and cold rolling – see rejection above):
annealing after cold rolling from Ac1 to 900C (para. [0164]; for example, ex. F1 is produced by coiling at 500C, cold rolling at 40%, and annealing at 830C – see Table 8);
cooling to a temperature of 580-780C at a cooling rate of 1-20C/s (para. [0166]);
cooling to a temperature of 350-500C at a rate of 5-200C/s and holding for a time of tOA to 1000s (para. [0167]), wherein tOA depends on retention temperature, therefore ranging from 15-202s for a temperature of 425C (see expression 21, para. [0168]);
cooling to 350C or less (para. [0167]; the claimed temperature Tsq for F1, for example (20% ferrite) comprises an Ms of 353.5C, and therefore a Tsq as low as 303.5C);
reheating to 350-500C for 20-3000s (does not disclose a heating rate); and
cooling to room temperature (see para. [0170], skin pass as needed which would be conducted at room temperature).
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 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 on (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/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights