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
Claim 53 is added as new claim; Claims 20, 28-39, 41-50 are withdrawn as non-elected claims. Claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-53 remain for examination, wherein claim 19, 52, and 53 are independent claims.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of Claim(s) 20 because informalities has withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 8/31/2026.
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 51-53 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), further evidenced by Yoshino et al (WO-2011118459-A1, with on-line translation, thereafter WO’459).
JP’387 in view of JP’535 is ap0plied to the instant claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-52 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 3/3/2026.
Regarding claim 53, JP’387 teaches an ultra-high strength cold-rolled steel sheet having a fine two-phase structure in which the martensite 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 claim. 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, 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 Mn amount 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) and 0.10-1.50 wt% Cr (par.[0014] of JP’535), which overlapping the claimed Mn and Cr 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 and Cr 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 Claim 53 (wt%)
From JP’387 (wt%)
Overlapping range
(wt%)
C
0.3-0.4
0.18-0.3
0.3
Mn
0.5-0.9 (cl.23)
--
0.4-1.5 (JP’535)
0.5-0.9 (JP’535)
Si
0.2-0.6
1.2 or less
0.2-0.6
Cr
0.1-1.0
--
0.1-1.50 (JP’535)
Overlapping:
0.1-1.0 (JP’535)
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)
Ti
0.001-0.1
0.01-0.1
0.01-0.1
S
0-0.09
0.003 or less
0.003 or less
P
0-0.09
0.02 or less
0.02 or less
N
0-0.09
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
Up to 97%
95-97
Ferrite and bainite area%
1-5
Ferrite: balance
1-5
Optional RA (area%)
0-2
Optional included (par.[0016])
Reads on
Properties
TS: 1700 MPa or more (cl.27, 53)
YS: 1500 MPa or more (cl.27, 53)
Hole expansion: 22% or more (cl.19, 23, 52-53)
TS:150-200 kgf/mm2 (about 1471-1961MPa)
MPEP 2112 01 2145 II evidenced by WO’459
TS: 1700-1961
MPEP 2112 01 2145 II
evidenced by WO’459
Regarding the alloy property limitations in the instant claim and 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 52-53) and TS and YS (cl.27, 53) 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. This position is further evidenced by WO’459. WO’459 teaches an ultra-high strength cold rolled steel sheet having high flatness and a martensite single phase structure (Abstract of WO’459). All of the essential alloy composition ranges (Claims and par.[0025]-[0035] of WO’459) overlaps the claimed alloy composition ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. WO’459 provides examples having TS, YS, and hole expansion ratio meet the claimed properties (table 3 of WO’459).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-53 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:
1, JP’387 does not specify the claimed Mn range as claimed in the instant claims. JP’535 teaches a is seeking for a different microstructure (completely martensite structure.
2, the steel of JP’387 in view of JP’535 would not inherently having “a hole expansion ratio of at least 22%” as claimed in the instant claims.
In response,
Regarding the Applicant’s argument 1, Firstly, the 1-2.5 wt% Mn disclosed by JP’387 overlaps the claimed Mn in claim 52; low limit 1%Mn in JP’387 is very close to the high limit Mn range claimed in the instant claim 19, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I, Secondly, JP’535 teaches adjusting 0.4-1.5 wt% Mn (par.[0013] of JP’535) and 0.10-1.50 wt% Cr (par.[0014] of JP’535), which overlapping the claimed Mn and Cr ranges as claimed in the instant claims. MPEP 2144 05 I. Thirdly, the Applicant's arguments are against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, JP’387 in view of JP’535 is applied to the instant claims 19, 21-27, 40, and 51-53. Detail reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for the claims above and previous office action dated 3/3/2026.
Regarding the argument 2, refer to the rejection above and rejection in the previous office action dated 3/3/2026, the hole expansion ratio is recognized as material features fully depended on the alloy composition and microstructures. JP’387 in view of JP’535 not only teaches all of the essential alloy compositions and microstructures as claimed in the instant claims, JP’387 in view of JP’535 but also teaches the similar TS. WO’459 is cited further providing evidence to show the similar TS, YS, and hole expansion in the similar cold rolled steel sheet as stated above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights