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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claim 19-26, 28, 38-46, and 49-50 are amended; Claim 52 is added as new claim; Claims 20, 28-39, 41-50 are withdrawn as non-elected claims. Claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-52 remain for examination, wherein claim 19 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claims 21-24, 40, and 51 because of informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 1/27/2026.
Previous objection of Claims 21-24 because of informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 1/27/2026.
Previous objection of Claims 25-26 because of informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 1/27/2026.
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 19, 21-27, 40, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOSHINO MASATAKA et al (JP 2011202195 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’195) in view of Yoshihiro et al (JP 08041535 A, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 2/9/2022, thereafter JP’535) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 1/27/2026.
However, in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 1/27/2026, newly recorded prior art, and reconsideration, the new ground rejection is listed as following:
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the indicator for the instant claim is not correct. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAGATAKI et al (JP 2528387 B2, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’387) in view of Yoshihiro et al (JP 08041535 A, with on-line translation, listed in IDS filed on 2/9/2022, thereafter JP’535)
Regarding claim 19, 21-26, 40, and 51-52, JP’387 teaches an ultra-high strength cold-rolled steel sheet having a fine two-phase structure in which the balance is up to 97% and the balance being ferrite, and having a good formability and strip shape (Abstract, Examples, and claims of JP’387), which reads on the cold rolled martensitic steel sheet as recited in the instant claims. The comparison between the alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’387 and those disclosed in the instant claims are listed in the following table. All of the major essential alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’387 overlap the claimed alloy composition ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of C, Mn, Si, Al, Ti, S, P, N, Nb, V, and Fe and phase distribution from the disclosure of JP’387 since JP’387 teaches the same cold rolled martensitic steel sheet throughout whole disclosing range. It is noted that JP’387 does not specify Cr and Mo (cl.19, 23, and 52), B (cl.51), Mn (cl.19 and 23) amounts in the instant alloy as claimed in the instant claims. JP’535 teaches a high hardness wear resistant steel sheet with all of the essential alloy composition ranges (Abstract, par.[0011]-[0019], and claims of JP’535). MPEP 2144 05 I. JP’535 specify adjusting 0.4-1.5 wt% Mn (par.[0013] of JP’535); 0.10-1.50 wt% Cr (par.[0014] of JP’535); 0.05-1.00 wt% Mo (par.[0014] of JP’535); and 0.0005-0.003 wt% B (par.[0016] of JP’535), which overlapping the claimed Mn, Cr, Mo, and B ranges as claimed in the instant claims. MPEP 2144 05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add proper amount of Mn, Cr, Mo, and B as demonstrated by JP’535 in the alloy of JP’387 Since JP’535 specify the proper amount of Mn, Cr, Mo, and B can secure hardenability and improve toughness of the steel alloy (par.[0013]-[0016] of JP’535).
Element
From instant Claims 19, 21-25, 40, and 51-52 (wt%)
From JP’387 (wt%)
Overlapping range
(wt%)
C
0.3-0.4 (cl.19,23,52)
0.3-0.38 (cl.21)
0.18-0.3
0.3
Mn
0.5-<1 (cl.19)
0.5-0.9 (cl.23)
0.5-1 (cl. 52)
1-2.5
1 is Close to up limit (cl.19)
1 is Close to 0.9 (cl.23)
Overlapping at 1 (cl.52)
Si
0.2-0.6 (cl.19,23, and 52)
1.2 or less
0.2-0.6
Cr
0.1-1.0 (cl.19,52)
0.3-0.9 (cl.24)
--
0.1-1.50 (JP’535)
Overlapping:
0.1-1.0 (cl.19,52)
(cl.24)
Al
0.01-1 (cl.19,23,52)
0.01-0.5 (cl.22)
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1 (cl.19,23,52)
0.01-0.1 (cl.22)
Mo
0.01-0.5 (cl.19,23,52)
0.1-0.3 (cl.40)
--
0.05-1.00 (JP’535)
Overlapping
0.05-0.5 (cl.19)
0.1-0.3 (cl.40)
Ti
0.001-0.1 (cl.19,23,52)
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
S
0-0.09 (cl.19,23,52)
0.003 or less
0.003 or less
P
0-0.09 (cl.19,23,52)
0.02 or less
0.02 or less
N
0-0.09 (cl.19,23,52)
Impurity level
0-impurity
Optional one or more
Nb: 0-0.1;
V: 0-0.1;
Ni: 0-1;
Cu: 0-1;
B: 0-0.05;
Ca: 0.001-0.01;
Sn: 0-0.1;
Pb: 0-0.1;
Sb: 0-0.1
Nb: 0.005-0.030
V: 0.01-0.1
Nb: 0.005-0.030
V: 0.01-0.1
Fe
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Balance + impurities
Martensite area%
At least 95 (cl.19,52)
96-99 (cl.25)
Up to 97%
95-97 (cl.19)
96-97 (cl.25)
Ferrite and bainite area%
1-5 (cl.19,52)
1-4 (cl.26)
Ferrite: balance
1-5 (cl.19)
1-4 (cl.26)
From claims 27
From Example #E in table 3 of JP’195
Overlapping ranges
Properties
TS: 1700 MPa or more (cl.27)
YS: 1500 MPa or more (cl.27)
Hole expansion: 22% or more (cl.19, 23, and 52)
TS:150-200 kgf/mm2 (about 1471-1961MPa)
MPEP 2112 01 2145 II
TS: 1700-1961
MPEP 2112 01 2145 II
From claim 51 (wt%)
B
0.0001-0.05
0.0005-0.003 (JP’535)
Overlapping
0.0005-0.003
Regarding the alloy property limitations in claims 19, 23, 27, and 52, they are recognized as material features fully depended on the alloy composition and microstructures. Since JP’387 in view of JP’535 teaches all of the essential alloy compositions and microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, the claimed hole expansion ratio (cl.19, 23, and 52) and TS and YS (cl.27) would be highly expected in the steel of JP’387 in view of JP’535. MPEP 2112 01 and 2145 II. Actually, JP’387 indicates TS:150-200 kgf/mm2 (about 1471-1961 MPa-noted by the Examiner, Par.[0007] and claims of JP’387), which overlaps the claimed TS range as claimed in the instant claim 27.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-52 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated as above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
The restriction of claims 20 and 46; the restriction of claims 23, 39, 44, 45, 49, and 50; the restriction of claims 24 and 38; the restriction of claims 25, 41, 42, and 43; and the restriction of claims 27, 47, and 48 should be rejoin for examination since there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden on the Examiner if the restriction is not required.
In response,
The Examiner has pointed out in the office action dated 8/21/2025, the Species listed above are independent or distinct since they have different claimed ranges, which need additional search and examination. Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734