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
Claims 3-4 have been cancelled, Claim 1 has been amended; claims 7-10 have been withdrawn as non-elected claims; Claims 1-2 and 5-6 remain in the application, wherein claim 1 is an independent claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawata et al (US-PG-pub 20140287263 A1, corresponding to US 9,708,679 B2, thereafter PG’263) in view of Kaneko et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0048155 A1, listed in IDS filed on 6/22/2023, thereafter PG’155).
Kawata et al (PG’263) in view of Kaneko et al (PG’155) is applied to the instant claims 1-2 and 5-6 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 4/7/2026.
Regarding the amended feature in the instant claim 1, PG’263 specify that the bainitic ferrite phase and/or bainite phase are/is a structure excellent in balance between strength and ductility, and are preferably contained by 10 to 50% by volume fraction in the steel sheet structure (par.[0056] of PG’263) and PG’263 provides examples including 8-18 vol% bainite (table 12 of PG’263) within the claimed bainite range of 8-30 area% as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in bainite phase range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. 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 optimize the amount of bainite as disclosed by PG’263 since PG’263 teaches the same high-strength hot-dip galvanized steel sheet as claimed throughout whole disclosing range and PG’263 indicates applying proper structures to a structure excellent in balance between strength and ductility. (par.[0056] of PG’263).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (US-PG-pub 2018/0002771 A1, listed in IDS filed on 8/1/2022, thereafter PG’771).
Han et al (PG’771) is applied to the instant claims 1-2 and 5-6 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 4/7/2026.
Regarding the claimed feature in the instant claim 1, PG’771 indicates that the microstructure of the steel sheet includes 40% or more of ferrite, 10% or less of bainite, 3% or less of residual austenite, and a balance of martensite (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’771), which overlaps the claimed bainite range of 8-30 area% as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in bainite phase range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize Sb from the disclosure of PG’771 since PG’771 teach the same steel sheet throughout whole disclosing range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 1-2 and 5-6 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has stated as above. (also refer to the Office Action dated 3/27/2024)
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
1, Since the instant invention including 8-30 are% bainite, the aforementioned fine martensite phase can be formed around the bainite to obtain (TSxUExNu) greater than 1900 with Nu of 0.185 or higher.
2, Kawata et al (PG’263) and Kaneko et al (U PG’155) and/or Han et al (PG’771) does not teach the grain size of martensite.
3, Han et al (PG’771) has completely different from the microstructure composition of the claimed steel sheet.
In response,
Regarding the Applicant’s argument 1, Firstly, PG’263 specify that the bainitic ferrite phase and/or bainite phase are/is a structure excellent in balance between strength and ductility, and are preferably contained by 10 to 50% by volume fraction in the steel sheet structure (par.[0056] of PG’263) and PG’263 provides examples including 8-18 vol% bainite (table 12 of PG’263) within the claimed bainite range of 8-30 area% as claimed in the instant claim; Secondly, it is noted that the “martensite phase around bainite” and “Nu is 0.185 or higher” is not actually included in the instant claims. Finally, #99 in table 12 provides TS 1096 MPa, Total elongation 19%, and n value of 0.125, which provides about 2603 (TSxUExN) (refer to the previous office action dated 4/7/2026)—reads on the claimed limitation of (TSxUExNu) of 1900 or more (cl.6).
Regarding the argument 2, martensite is formed from the fast cooling of austenite. The austenite grain size decides the grain size of the formed martensite.
Regarding the argument 3, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument since PG’771 indicates that the microstructure of the steel sheet includes 40% or more of ferrite, 10% or less of bainite, 3% or less of residual austenite, and a balance of martensite (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’771), which overlaps the claimed microstructures ranges as claimed in the instant claims.
.
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