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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 17-24, 27-29 and 38-46 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 17, 38 and 42 are amended.
Status of Previous Rejections
All prior art rejections are maintained from previous office action of 01/15/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/11/2021, 05/29/2024 and 02/24/2025 and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretations
The phrase "inline continuous method “ is interpreted as a process that is fully integrated into a production line and runs continuously, not the sequency of each claimed steps must be continuous because instant claim 17 “comprising” is an inclusive open transitional phrase which does not exclude any unrecited additional steps. See MPEP 2111.03 I. Hence, examiner takes the position that as long as prior art discloses all required steps as required by instant claim 17, it meets claimed inline, continuous.
If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “comprising”, applicant has the burden of showing that introduction of additional steps would materially change the characteristics of applicants invention. See MPEP 2111.03
Second, claims 17, 38 and 42 “cooling the hot rolled steel strip” is expected if cooling is after hot rolling. “Hardening the cooled steel strip” is expected if hardening is after cooling. “the hot rolled strip products” is expected if hot rolling occurs.
Lastly, instant claim 17, 38 and 42 amended “the hot rolled strip products are formed continuously in a strip form” does not exclude the hot rolled strip products formed continuously in a wound and/or unwound strip form.
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.
Claim(s) 17-24, 27-29 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taji (JP2006183139A) in view of Futamura (US20150101712).
As for claims 17-20 and 45-46, it is noted instant claim 17 is amended to require “the hot rolled strip products are formed continuously in a strip form”.
Taji discloses a method of forming a hot-rolled hot strip product comprising providing a steel alloy with the following elements as illustrated in Table 1 below:
Table 1
Elements
Claims 17, 38, 42 (%wt)
Claims 18, 41, 44 (%wt)
Taji (%wt)
C
0.03-0.22
0.055-0.195
0.1-0.25 [0040]
Si
0-2
0-0.3
0-1.5 [0041]
Mn
0.5-3
1.4-2.3
1-3 [0042]
Al
0.02-1.2
0.02-0.6
0.01-0.5 [0045]
Cr
0-2
0-2
0.005-1 [0018]
Ni
0-2
0-2
0.1-2 [0030]
Mo
0-1
0-0.42
0.005-0.5 [0028]
Cu
0-1.5
0-0.5
0-3.78 (Table 1)
P
0-0.02
0-0.008
0-0.1 [0026]
S
0-0.01
0-0.0015
0-0.005 [0026]
N
0-0.008
0-0.007
0-0.01 [0026]
B
0-0.005
0-0.005
0-0.0015 (Table 1)
Nb
0-0.2
0-0.2
0-0.042 (Table 1)
Ti
0-0.3
0-0.3
0-0.049 (Table 1)
V
0-0.5
0-0.5
0.1-1 [0047]
Fe
Balance
Balance
Balance
As shown above, the composition reads on or overlaps with the claimed ranges for each element; in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Melting and casting into slab ingots [0094];
Heating the slab to a temperature above 1000 C temperature [0069]; meeting claimed above Ac3 as Ac3 temperature is 770-840 C (paragraph [0032])
Hot rolling [0069] where a finishing temperature is 800 C or higher [0070] which is considered above a recrystallization temperature of steel (generally between 400-700 C);
Cooling to room temperature [0023]; Since cooling is after hot rolling, cooling the hot rolled steel strip is expected.
Hardening (by annealing and quenching) by holding at 950 C, above Ac3 point for 60 s [0032]; where heating is performed using induction hardening which comprising induction heating as required by claim 19, the temperature of 950 C, reads on the claim 20 range of 800-1000 C; Since hardening is after cooling, hardening the cooled steel strip is expected.
Hence, instant claim 17 required “inline, continuous” limitation is met in light of prior art disclosing all required steps.
With respect to amendment, Taji’s coiling results a wound steel strip. Hence, a wound steel strip still reads on a strip form. That is, a wound steel strip does not change the strip form itself.
Hence, Taji’s process discloses “the hot rolled strip products are formed continuously in a strip form” as required by the amendment.
Taji is silent regarding the heating rate of 10K/s as required by amended claim 17, heating rate of more than 50 K/s and more than 100K/s as required by instant claims 45-46, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a temperature ramp rate which fast enough to reach a desired soaking temperature as fast as possible without causing defects in the steel.
Futamura discloses average heating rate above 1 C/s is well known in the art. (paragraph [0097]). Heating rate above 1 C/s overlaps instant claims 17, 45 and 46 required ranges.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply well known heating rate as suggested by Futamura, in the process of Taji for minimizing defects in the steel.
As for claim 21, after quench hardening, the steel is tempered annealed at 600 C [0032]
As for claim 22, the holding temperature is a minimum of 10 seconds [0076], overlapping with the claimed range of about 0.5 to about 10 seconds. In the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As for claim 23-24, the cooling rate is 10-50 C/s [0077] (10-50 K/s), reading on the claim 23 range of >10 K/s, and overlapping with the claim 24 range of >30K/s. In the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
As for claim 27, the steel strips are welded together forming heat affected zones (weld seams) and heat treating and tempering the welded steel strips [0033][0037]
As for claim 28, the thickness is 4 mm [0108], reading on the claimed range of 1.5-20 mm.
As for claim 29, the Holloman-Jaffe parameter is a numerical relationship to predict the hardness of steels after tempering; generally expressed as:
PH = TC (C +log t) x 10^-3; where Ph is the parameter, Tc is the temperature, t is time, and C is the Holloman-Jaffe constant, which is material dependent. Since the tempering time and temperature and material are substantially similar to that of the claimed invention, a similar Holloman-Jaffe parameter range is expected for the prior art under the expectation that similar methods form products with similar properties. (See MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Claim(s) 17-24, 27-29 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taji (JP2006183139A) in view of Kawabata (EP2239343A1).
As for claims 17-24, 27-29 and 45-46, Taji discloses instant claims limitation as indicated in rejection of Taji in view of Futamura above.
Taji does not disclose instant claims 17, 45-46 required heating rate.
Kawabata discloses heating rate of 10 degree C/s or more ([0006] last three lines) is beneficial for desired surface hardness which leads to sufficient fatigue durability.
Table 2 of Kawabata further discloses inventive examples 7-8 has heating rate of 45 degree C/s which is equivalent to 45 K/s. Hence, instant claims 17 amended temperature increase of more than 10K/s is met. 45 K/s is close to instant claims 45 required more than 50k/s. Broad range of more than 10k/s overlaps instant claim 46 required more than 100 K/s absent criticality of claimed temperature increase rate.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply heating rate of Kawabata at more than 10K/s, in the process of Taji for desired surface hardness which leads to sufficient fatigue durability.
Claim(s) 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taji (JP2006183139A) in view of Futamura (US20150101712) and Klein (NPL document “Ultra High Strength Steels Produced by Thermomechanical Hot Rolling- Advanced Properties and Applications” BHM. Vol. 157(3) 108-112. 2012))
As for claims 38-46, Taji discloses a method of forming a hot-rolled hot strip product comprising providing a steel alloy with the following elements as illustrated in Table 1 above.
As shown above, the composition reads on or overlaps with the claimed ranges for each element; in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside of a claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Melting and casting into slab ingots [0094];
Heating the slab to a temperature above 1000 C temperature [0069], meeting claimed above Ac3 as Ac3 temperature is 770-840 C (paragraph [0032])
Hot rolling [0069] where a finishing temperature is 800 C or higher [0070]
Cooling to room temperature [0023];
Hardening (by annealing and quenching) by holding at 950 C, above Ac3 point for 60 s [0032]; where heating is performed using induction hardening which comprising induction heating, the temperature of 950 C reads on the claimed range of 800-1000 C; Quenching reads on cooling the hot rolled steel strips again to form hardened steel strips. 60 s reads on claimed hold period of 0.5-60 second prior to quenching
after hardening, the steel is tempered annealed at 600 C [0032] which read on annealing the hardened strips at a temperature below Ac1 as Ac1 temperature is 670-700 C (paragraph [0032]
the hardened steel strips are mainly martensite [0038]
Hence, instant claim 17 required “inline, continuous” limitation is met in light of prior art disclosing all required steps.
With respect to amendment, Taji’s coiling results a wound steel strip. Hence, a wound steel strip still reads on a strip form. That is, a wound steel strip does not change the strip form itself.
Hence, Taji’s process suggests the hot rolled strip products are formed continuously in a strip form” as required by the amendment.
Taji is silent regarding the heating rate of 10K/s, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a temperature ramp rate which fast enough to reach a desired soaking temperature as fast as possible without causing defects in the steel;
Futamura discloses instant claimed heating rate would have been obvious for the reason set forth in rejection of claim 17 above over Taji over Futamura.
Taji is also silent regarding “suppressing a recrystallization of the steel alloy during the hot rolling to form hot rolled steel strips having a non-recrystallized elongated austenite structure”.
Klein teaches thermomechanical hot rolling and martensitic transformation may be used to form high yield strength steel sheets with low C content with excellent welding behavior (abstract), where to simulate a thermomechanical treatment, conditioning of the austenite was realized by compressing with a deformation rate 2 s-1 and a true strain of 0.3 at a temperature of 850 C (Page 110, Col. 1); where thermomechanical treatment is performed above the A3 temperature to form a fine grained product by deforming the austenite in a temperature range where recrystallization is hindered or stopped, leading to an increased number of nuclei for transformation products (Page 109, Col. 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the hot rolling of Taji to be thermomechanical treatment and suppressing a recrystallization of the steel alloy during the hot rolling to form hot rolled steel strips having a non-recrystallized elongated austenite structure as suggested by Klein for the purpose of forming a high yield strength product with improved welding properties.
As for claims 39-40 and 43, they are inherent properties due to combination of same steel strip compositions and process of making according to MPEP 2112.01.
When a claimed process along with its resultant product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as, or an obvious variant of, a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art process and its resultant product does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden on the applicant is the same. Cf. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best,562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
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, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Where 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Claim(s) 38-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taji (JP2006183139A) in view of Kawabata (EP2239343A1) and Klein (NPL document “Ultra High Strength Steels Produced by Thermomechanical Hot Rolling- Advanced Properties and Applications” BHM. Vol. 157(3) 108-112. 2012))
As for claims 38-46, Taji and Klein disclose instant claims limitation as indicated in rejection of Taji in view of Futamura and Klein above.
Taji does not disclose instant claims 38, 45-46 required heating rate.
Kawabata discloses instant claimed heating rate would have been obvious to one skill in the art for the reason set forth in rejection of claim 17 over Taji in view of Kawabata agove.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument filed on 02/18/2026 is considered but is not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to argument that continuous and inline formation of hot rolled strip products in a strip form precludes intervening steps such as coiling and necessarily followed by uncoiling, cutting and shaping, argument is not persuasive because of the following reasons:
First, Taji does not disclose or suggest uncoiling, cutting and shaping at all.
Second, Taji’s coiling merely results a wound steel strip which still reads on strip form as claimed. That is, claimed continuous and inline formation of hot rolled strip products in a strip form does not exclude (emphasis added) wound strip form.
In resp
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733