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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of JP 2019-201427 filed November 6, 2019 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO 2021/090642, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2020/038468 filed October 12, 2020.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks, Declaration, and Claim Amendments filed November 21, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
November 21, 2025
Amended
7
Pending
1-7
Withdrawn
4-5
Under Examination
1-3, 6-7
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following 112(b) rejection is withdrawn due to claim amendment:
Claim 7 lines 28-30 “a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite”.
Response to Remarks and Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 of Eisaku Sakurada
filed November 21, 2025
Fujita in view of Venkatasurya
Applicant’s arguments, see Dec. pp. 4-6, filed November 21, 2025, with respect to Fujita have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Fujita in view of Venkatasurya has been withdrawn.
The declarant persuasively argues Fujita does not disclose the rough rolling completion temperature is 1000°C or higher (applicant’s [0079]) in combination with a total reduction in rough rolling over 65% (applicant’s [0080]) (Dec. p. 4 para. 2, p. 6 paras. 1-3) because finish rolling is performed after rough rolling (Dec. p. 4 para. 2), such that it is a part of rough rolling (Dec. p. 5 para. 2), where, according to Fujita [0035], increasing the reduction ratio above 1000°C makes it difficult to refine the grain size (Dec. p. 5 para. 1).
Applicant rough rolls at 1000°C or higher (applicant’s specification [0079]-[0081]) and Fujita rough rolls at 1000°C or less (Fujita [0035]). Fujita discloses limiting the rough rolling temperature to prevent difficulties in refining the grain size. Pending claim 1 recites a tensile strength of 780 MPa. While Fujita discloses a tensile strength of 490 MPa or more ([0005], [0011]), the inventive examples of Fujita are less than 780 MPa (Table 3).
Venkatasurya
Applicant’s arguments, see Dec. pp. 7-8, filed November 21, 2025, with respect to Venkatasurya have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Venkatasurya has been withdrawn.
The declarant persuasively argues Venkatasurya discloses a high-strength steel sheet with a tensile strength of 1180 MPa or more and a combined area ratio of martensite and bainite of 71-91% (Dec. p. 8 para. 3) and that Venkatasurya discloses annealing and quenching after coiling ([0039]-[0062]) (Dec. p. 8 para. 6), such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect Venkatasurya to achieve the claimed total density of l7 and L68 grain boundaries (Dec. p. 8 paras. 7-8).
Venkatasurya discloses a sum of martensite and bainite between 71% and 91% ([0111]) formed by coiling, heat treating, annealing, and then quenching and partitioning ([0093]-[0105]). Therefore, the steel of Venkatasurya with the microstructure that reads on that claimed is formed as a result of additional processing steps, supporting declarant’s persuasive argument.
Furuhashi in view of Venkatasurya
Declarant’s arguments filed November 21, 2025 with respect to Furuhashi in view of Venkatasurya have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The declarant argues a modified invention is substantially different from the claimed invention unless the missing feature is inherent (Dec. p. 2 paras. 2-3), where combining individual references would not achieve the present invention (Dec. p. 2 paras. 4-6) because characteristics are dependent upon the raw materials and the manufacturing method (Dec. p. 2 para. 7) such that differences in manufacturing lead to different product characteristics (Dec. p. 2 para. 8) and it is difficult to predict how differences in manufacturing conditions will affect the characteristics of the resulting product (Dec. p. 2 para. 9, p. 3 paras. 1-2, Remarks para. spanning pp. 7-8). Therefore, combining the inventions of Furuhashi and Venkatasurya modifies the manufacturing method (Dec. p. 10 para. 2), which changes characteristics of the original product and may not achieve expected characteristics (Dec. p. 10 para. 3).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2123(I).
In Furuhashi in view of Venkatasurya, Venkatasurya discloses heat treating between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours to reduce strain in the steel and improve cold-rollability (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]). Therefore, in light of the disclosure of the prior art, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how changing the manufacturing conditions impacts the resulting product.
The declarant argues a total reduction in rough rolling over 65% (applicant’s [0080]), a cooling stop temperature in the cooling process immediately after hot rolling of 570 to 620°C (applicant’s [0087]), and retention after coiling at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 to 12.0 hours (applicant’s [0089]) must be satisfied for the claimed total density of the claimed L7 length and L68 length grain boundaries to be satisfied (Dec. p. 3 para. 4), where the claimed invention simultaneously satisfies all of the characteristics (Dec. p. 9 para. 8) and the manufacturing conditions described by applicant in [0075]-[0091] (Dec. p. 9 para. 9) and applicant’s examples provide evidence that deviations from the manufacturing conditions prevent simultaneous satisfaction of all the claimed characteristics (Dec. p. 10 para. 1).
Applicants have the burden of explaining proferred data as evidenced of non-obviousness. MPEP 716.02(b)(II). Applicant has not met this burden of explaining how the proferred data of applicant’s examples provide evidence of non-obvious of the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet.
The declarant argues Furuhashi does not disclose the claimed total density of L7 and L68 grain boundaries (Dec. p. 7 para. 2), a total reduction in rough rolling over 65%, and holding after coiling at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 to 12.0 hours (Dec. p. 7 para. 3, Remarks p. 8 paras. 2-4), where the processes from hot rolling to cold rolling are described in [0066]-[0075] of applicant’s specification (Dec. p. 7 para. 4, Remarks p. 8 paras. 5-8).
Regarding a total reduction in rough rolling over 65%, the pending claims are directed to a hot-rolled steel sheet product. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113(I). Applicant’s specification at [0081] recites that “By setting the total rolling reduction to 70% or more…the average grain size and an aspect ratio of the prior austenite grains described above can be realized and [0065] describes “Average grain size of prior austenite grains: 10 to 30 um” and “Ratio ld/Sd between Long Axis ld and Short Axis Sd of Prior Austenite Grains: 2.0 or less”, which are also recited in claim 3. Furuhashi discloses an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]), which overlaps with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the total rolling reduction unexpectedly resulting in the claimed total density of L7 and L68 grain boundaries, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II). Applicant’s examples only include one example, 72, with a rolling reduction of 62% (Table 4) and a L7+L68 of 0.28 um/um2 (Table 7). Applicant’s inventive examples have a minimum rolling reduction of 72% (No. 74) (Table 4) with a L7+L68 of 0.42 um/um2 (Table 7). This data is insufficient to establish the total rolling reduction unexpectedly results in the claimed total density of L7 and L68 grain boundaries because it only includes one example with a rolling reduction lower than the range by applicant and it does not include data between 62% and 72% rolling reduction. Since it only includes one example with one composition and one set of processing conditions outside of the argued total rolling reduction the data is not commensurate in scope with the claims it is offering to support because it does not span the range of claimed compositions. MPEP 716.02(d).
Regarding the argued holding after coiling, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness 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).
Furuhashi in view of Venkatasurya discloses coiling at 700°C or less (Furuhashi [0069]) then retaining between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours to advantageously reduce strain in the steel (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]).
Further, in support of obviousness, pending claim 1 recites a tensile strength of 780 MPa or more and Furuhashi discloses a tensile strength of 980 MPa or more ([0030], [0054]), and, as presented in the following table, the tensile strength and elongation of applicant’s inventive examples overlap with those of Furuhashi’s examples.
Property
Applicant’s Tables 5, 7
Furuhashi Tables 4, 5
Tensile Strength
901-1106 MPa
980-1046 MPa
Elongation
14.1-25.0 %
12 -16 %
The declarant argues hindsight (Dec. p. 10 para. 5).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Furuhashi in view of Venkatasurya is maintained.
New Grounds
Upon further search and consideration the following new grounds of rejection are made: Furuhashi in view of Hayashi, Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya, Gaganov in view of Hayashi, and Hayashi in view of Gaganov.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) with an overlapping composition ([0020], [0031]-[0046]), microstructure ([0012], [0048]-[0055]), and tensile strength ([0007], [0011], [0030], [0054]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Feature
Claims 1 and 2
Furuhashi Disclosure
Furuhashi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.05 to 0.20
[0032]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.1 to 2.0
[0033]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.0 to 3.0
[0034]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.001 to 0.20
[0037]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.01 to 0.30
[0042]
P
0.020 or less
0.10 or less
[0035]
S
0.020 or less
0.010 or less
[0036]
N
0.010 or less
0.020 or less
[0038]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.005 to 0.200
Opt. 0.01 to 0.30
[0042]
B
0 to 0.010
0.001 to 0.010
-
-
V
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
Opt. 0.01 to 0.50
[0043]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
Opt. 0.01 to 0.50
[0043]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Co
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Balance
[0040]
Bainite
80.0 or more
95 or more
[0048]-[0055]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
2 or less
[0055]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
5 or less
[0048], [0055]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
980 MPa or more
[0030], [0054]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite is 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet that results from the claim 1 composition undergoing the disclosed processing (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). The process of the prior art is substantially similar (Furuhashi [0064]-[0074]).
In the disclosed process controlling the rough rolling and the rolling reduction in the final three stages of finish rolling realized the average grain size and aspect ratio of the prior austenite grains (applicant’s specification [0079]-[0081]). Furuhashi discloses an overlapping prior austenite average grain size and aspect ratio (Furuhashi [0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]). Further, the cooling temperature achieves a desired amount of bainite (applicant’s specification [0087]). Furuhashi achieves an overlapping amount of bainite ([0048]-[0055]). Achieving an overlapping structure (prior austenite grains and bainite amount), which supports the substantial similarity of applicant’s and Furuhashi’s processes.
Applicant
Furuhashi
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating
1050 to 1300°C
[0064]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
[0079]-[0081]
-
Hot Rolling
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
Reduction in final 3 stages less than 25%
[0082]-[0084]
Hot Rolling
Finish rolling 780 to 1030°C
[0066]
Cooling
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling
Ar3 to 700°C
10°C/sec or more
[0067]-[0068]
Winding and Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
Coiling
700°C or less
[0069]
With respect to processing, Furuhashi is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Venkatasurya discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0021], [0093]) that is heat treated between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours ([0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Furuhashi after coiling to anneal between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours in order to reduce the strain in the steel and improve the cold-rollability (Venkatasurya [0094]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Furuhashi [0020], [0031]-[0046]), microstructure (Furuhashi [0012], [0048]-[0055]), tensile strength (Furuhashi [0007], [0011], [0030], [0054]), and processing (Furuhashi [0064]-[0074]; Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Regarding claim 2, Furuhashi discloses an overlapping composition ([0042]-[0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Furuhashi discloses in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation) in view of Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) with an overlapping composition ([0020], [0031]-[0046]), microstructure ([0012], [0048]-[0055]), and tensile strength ([0007], [0011], [0030], [0054]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Feature
Claims 1 and 2
Furuhashi Disclosure
Furuhashi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.05 to 0.20
[0032]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.1 to 2.0
[0033]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.0 to 3.0
[0034]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.001 to 0.20
[0037]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.01 to 0.30
[0042]
P
0.020 or less
0.10 or less
[0035]
S
0.020 or less
0.010 or less
[0036]
N
0.010 or less
0.020 or less
[0038]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.005 to 0.200
Opt. 0.01 to 0.30
[0042]
B
0 to 0.010
0.001 to 0.010
-
-
V
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
Opt. 0.01 to 0.50
[0043]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
Opt. 0.01 to 0.50
[0043]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Co
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Balance
[0040]
Bainite
80.0 or more
95 or more
[0048]-[0055]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
2 or less
[0055]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
5 or less
[0048], [0055]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
980 MPa or more
[0030], [0054]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite is 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet that results from the claim 1 composition undergoing the disclosed processing (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). The process of the prior art is substantially similar (Furuhashi [0064]-[0074]).
In the disclosed process controlling the rough rolling and the rolling reduction in the final three stages of finish rolling realized the average grain size and aspect ratio of the prior austenite grains (applicant’s specification [0079]-[0081]). Furuhashi discloses an overlapping prior austenite average grain size and aspect ratio (Furuhashi [0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]). Further, the cooling temperature achieves a desired amount of bainite (applicant’s specification [0087]). Furuhashi achieves an overlapping amount of bainite ([0048]-[0055]). Achieving an overlapping structure (prior austenite grains and bainite amount) supports the substantial similarity of applicant’s and Furuhashi’s processes.
Applicant
Furuhashi
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating
1050 to 1300°C
[0064]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
[0079]-[0081]
-
Hot Rolling
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
Reduction in final 3 stages less than 25%
[0082]-[0084]
Hot Rolling
Finish rolling 780 to 1030°C
[0066]
Cooling
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling
Ar3 to 700°C
10°C/sec or more
[0067]-[0068]
Winding and Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
Coiling
700°C or less
[0069]
With respect to processing, Furuhashi is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Hayashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0010]-[0011]) that is wound then heat treated between 500 and 580°C (400 to 700°C) for 2.0 hours or more (1 to 100,000 seconds, 0.0003 to 28 hours) ([0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Furuhashi after coiling to heat treat between 400 and 700°C for 1 to 100,000 seconds (0.0003 to 28 hours) to precipitate oxides, sulfides, nitrides, and composites without coarsening causing a decrease in trapping ability and steel strength (Hayashi [0044]-[0045]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Furuhashi [0020], [0031]-[0046]), microstructure (Furuhashi [0012], [0048]-[0055]), tensile strength (Furuhashi [0007], [0011], [0030], [0054]), and processing (Furuhashi [0064]-[0074]; Hayashi [0044]-[0045]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Regarding claim 2, Furuhashi discloses an overlapping composition ([0042]-[0043]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Furuhashi discloses in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007).
Regarding claim 1, Gaganov discloses an example hot-rolled steel sheet ([0068], [0083]-[0086]) comprising a chemical composition ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure ([0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), and tensile strength (Rm) ([0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16) that fall within the scope of the claim.
Feature
Claims 1 and 2
Gaganov Steel B No. 16 Tables 1, 3
Gaganov Disclosure
Gaganov Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.053
0.05 to 0.08
[0039]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.49
0.50 max
[0040]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.75
1.60 to 2.00
[0041]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.034
0.020 to 0.050
[0044]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.110
0.09 to 0.13
[0049]
P
0.020 or less
0.015
0.025 max
[0042]
S
0.020 or less
0.0014
0.010 max
[0043]
N
0.010 or less
0.0046
0.006 max
[0045]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.005 to 0.200
0.62
0.060 to 0.070
[0047]
B
0 to 0.010
0.001 to 0.010
0.0020
0.0005 to 0.0025
[0048]
V
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.005
0.01 max
[0050]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.004
0.004 max
[0050]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.02
0.12 max
[0050]
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.04
0.40 max
[0046]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.03
0.1 max
[0050]
Co
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0030]
Bainite
80.0 or more
100
At least 70 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
None
[0068]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
No more than 30 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
857 MPa
750 to 950 MPa
[0075], [0092]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of the example of Gaganov falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, and cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16).
Applicant
Gaganov Steel No. 16 Table 2a
Gaganov
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating (TW)
1298°C
[0080]
Reheating
At least 1250°C
For TiC and NbC precipitate dissolution
[0061]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Rough Rolling
1090°C (TVW)
82% (Δhv)
900°C (TEW)
[0082]-[0083]
Rough Rolling
950 to 1250°C
At least 50%
At least 800°C
[0064], [0068]-[0069]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
580°C (HT)
120 K/s (dT)
[0084]-[0085]
Cooling then Coiling
550 to 620°C
At least 40 K/s
[0070]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
-
-
With respect to processing, Gaganov is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Venkatasurya discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0021], [0093]) that is wound then heat treated between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours ([0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gaganov after coiling to anneal between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours in order to reduce the strain in the steel and improve the cold-rollability (Venkatasurya [0094]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Regarding claim 2, Gaganov discloses an example with a chemical composition that falls within the scope of the claim ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B).
Regarding claim 3, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Further the limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the above claim 1 rejection, the processing of the example of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16), and retaining (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 6, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Further the limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the above claim 1 rejection, the processing of the example of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16), and retaining (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 2) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 7, Gaganov discloses an example hot-rolled steel sheet ([0068], [0083]-[0086]) comprising a chemical composition ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure ([0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), and tensile strength (Rm) ([0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16) that fall within the scope of the claim.
Feature
Claim 7
Gaganov Steel B No. 16 Tables 1, 3
Gaganov Disclosure
Gaganov Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.053
0.05 to 0.08
[0039]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.49
0.50 max
[0040]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.75
1.60 to 2.00
[0041]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.034
0.020 to 0.050
[0044]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.110
0.09 to 0.13
[0049]
P
0.020 or less
0.015
0.025 max
[0042]
S
0.020 or less
0.0014
0.010 max
[0043]
N
0.010 or less
0.0046
0.006 max
[0045]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.62
0.060 to 0.070
[0047]
B
0 to 0.010
0.0020
0.0005 to 0.0025
[0048]
V
0 to 1.00
0.005
0.01 max
[0050]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.004
0.004 max
[0050]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.02
0.12 max
[0050]
W
0 to 1.00
-
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.04
0.40 max
[0046]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.03
0.1 max
[0050]
Co
0 to 1.00
-
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0030]
Bainite
80.0 or more
100
At least 70 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
None
[0068]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
No more than 30 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
857 MPa
750 to 950 MPa
[0075], [0092]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of the example of Gaganov falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, and cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16).
Applicant
Gaganov Steel No. 16 Table 2a
Gaganov
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating (TW)
1298°C
[0080]
Reheating
At least 1250°C
For TiC and NbC precipitate dissolution
[0061]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Rough Rolling
1090°C (TVW)
82% (Δhv)
900°C (TEW)
[0082]-[0083]
Rough Rolling
950 to 1250°C
At least 50%
At least 800°C
[0064], [0068]-[0069]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
580°C (HT)
120 K/s (dT)
[0084]-[0085]
Cooling then Coiling
550 to 620°C
At least 40 K/s
[0070]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
-
-
With respect to processing, Gaganov is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Venkatasurya discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0021], [0093]) that is heat treated between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours ([0094]-[0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gaganov after coiling to anneal between 500 and 650°C for between 300 seconds (5 minutes) and 12 hours in order to reduce the strain in the steel and improve the cold-rollability (Venkatasurya [0094]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 7) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 3, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Gaganov to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 6, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Gaganov to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Gaganov discloses an example hot-rolled steel sheet ([0068], [0083]-[0086]) comprising a chemical composition ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure ([0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), and tensile strength (Rm) ([0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16) that fall within the scope of the claim.
Feature
Claims 1 and 2
Gaganov Steel B No. 16 Tables 1, 3
Gaganov Disclosure
Gaganov Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.053
0.05 to 0.08
[0039]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.49
0.50 max
[0040]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.75
1.60 to 2.00
[0041]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.034
0.020 to 0.050
[0044]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.110
0.09 to 0.13
[0049]
P
0.020 or less
0.015
0.025 max
[0042]
S
0.020 or less
0.0014
0.010 max
[0043]
N
0.010 or less
0.0046
0.006 max
[0045]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.005 to 0.200
0.62
0.060 to 0.070
[0047]
B
0 to 0.010
0.001 to 0.010
0.0020
0.0005 to 0.0025
[0048]
V
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.005
0.01 max
[0050]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.004
0.004 max
[0050]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.02
0.12 max
[0050]
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.04
0.40 max
[0046]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.03
0.1 max
[0050]
Co
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0030]
Bainite
80.0 or more
100
At least 70 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
None
[0068]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
No more than 30 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
857 MPa
750 to 950 MPa
[0075], [0092]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of the example of Gaganov falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, and cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16).
Applicant
Gaganov Steel No. 16 Table 2a
Gaganov
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating (TW)
1298°C
[0080]
Reheating
At least 1250°C
For TiC and NbC precipitate dissolution
[0061]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Rough Rolling
1090°C (TVW)
82% (Δhv)
900°C (TEW)
[0082]-[0083]
Rough Rolling
950 to 1250°C
At least 50%
At least 800°C
[0064], [0068]-[0069]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
580°C (HT)
120 K/s (dT)
[0084]-[0085]
Cooling then Coiling
550 to 620°C
At least 40 K/s
[0070]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
-
-
With respect to processing, Gaganov is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Hayashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0010]-[0011]) that is wound then heat treated between 500 and 580°C (400 to 700°C) for 2.0 hours or more (1 to 100,000 seconds, 0.0003 to 28 hours) ([0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gaganov after coiling to heat treat between 400 and 700°C for 1 to 100,000 seconds (0.0003 to 28 hours) to precipitate oxides, sulfides, nitrides, and composites without coarsening causing a decrease in trapping ability and steel strength (Hayashi [0044]-[0045]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Hayashi [0044]-[0045]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Regarding claim 2, Gaganov discloses an example with a chemical composition that falls within the scope of the claim ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B).
Regarding claim 3, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Further the limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the above claim 1 rejection, the processing of the example of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16), and retaining (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Hayashi [0044]-[0045]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 6, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Further the limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that result from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the above claim 1 rejection, the processing of the example of Gaganov in view of Venkatasurya falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16), and retaining (Venkatasurya [0094]-[0095]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Hayashi [0044]-[0045]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 2) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 7, Gaganov discloses an example hot-rolled steel sheet ([0068], [0083]-[0086]) comprising a chemical composition ([0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure ([0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), and tensile strength (Rm) ([0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16) that fall within the scope of the claim.
Feature
Claim 7
Gaganov Steel B No. 16 Tables 1, 3
Gaganov Disclosure
Gaganov Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.053
0.05 to 0.08
[0039]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
0.49
0.50 max
[0040]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
1.75
1.60 to 2.00
[0041]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.034
0.020 to 0.050
[0044]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.110
0.09 to 0.13
[0049]
P
0.020 or less
0.015
0.025 max
[0042]
S
0.020 or less
0.0014
0.010 max
[0043]
N
0.010 or less
0.0046
0.006 max
[0045]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.62
0.060 to 0.070
[0047]
B
0 to 0.010
0.0020
0.0005 to 0.0025
[0048]
V
0 to 1.00
0.005
0.01 max
[0050]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.004
0.004 max
[0050]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.02
0.12 max
[0050]
W
0 to 1.00
-
-
-
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.04
0.40 max
[0046]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.03
0.1 max
[0050]
Co
0 to 1.00
-
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Mg
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
REM
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Zr
0 to 0.010
-
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Remainder
Remainder
[0030]
Bainite
80.0 or more
100
At least 70 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
None
[0068]
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
No more than 30 vol%
[0015], [0073]
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
857 MPa
750 to 950 MPa
[0075], [0092]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of the example of Gaganov falls within the scope of applicant’s disclosed heating, hot rolling, and cooling then winding conditions (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16).
Applicant
Gaganov Steel No. 16 Table 2a
Gaganov
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0 hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Heating (TW)
1298°C
[0080]
Reheating
At least 1250°C
For TiC and NbC precipitate dissolution
[0061]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Rough Rolling
1090°C (TVW)
82% (Δhv)
900°C (TEW)
[0082]-[0083]
Rough Rolling
950 to 1250°C
At least 50%
At least 800°C
[0064], [0068]-[0069]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
580°C (HT)
120 K/s (dT)
[0084]-[0085]
Cooling then Coiling
550 to 620°C
At least 40 K/s
[0070]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
-
-
With respect to processing, Gaganov is silent to retaining at 500 to 580°C for 2.0 hours or more after coiling.
Hayashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0010]-[0011]) that is wound then heat treated between 500 and 580°C (400 to 700°C) for 2.0 hours or more (1 to 100,000 seconds, 0.0003 to 28 hours) ([0044]-[0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Gaganov after coiling to heat treat between 400 and 700°C for 1 to 100,000 seconds (0.0003 to 28 hours) to precipitate oxides, sulfides, nitrides, and composites without coarsening causing a decrease in trapping ability and steel strength (Hayashi [0044]-[0045]).
The prior art discloses a composition (Gaganov [0017]-[0030], [0039]-[0058], Table 1 Steel B), microstructure (Gaganov [0015], [0073], [0084]-[0085], Table 3 No. 16), tensile strength (Gaganov [0075], [0092], Table 3 No. 16), and processing (Gaganov [0061]-[0070], Table 2a No. 16; Hayashi [0044]-[0045]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 7) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Gaganov in view of Hayashi, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 3, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Gaganov to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaganov (US 2017/0137911) in view of Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Gaganov in view of Hayashi, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 6, Gaganov discloses reheating to avoid coarsening of the austenite grains ([0059]), forming a fine-grained austenitic microstructure prior to finish rolling to achieve optimized toughness and fracture elongation ([0065]), and processing with a delay between rough rolling and finish rolling controlled to avoid unwanted austenite grain growth ([0066]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Gaganov to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation) in view of Gaganov (US 2017/0137911).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0010]-[0011]) comprising an overlapping chemical composition ([0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure ([0021]), and tensile strength ([0008]-[0009], [0021]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Feature
Claims 1 and 2
Hayashi Disclosure
Hayashi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.01 to 0.3
[0022]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
2.0 max
[0023]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
0.01 to 3.0
[0024]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.005 to 4.0
[0027]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.001 to 3
[0032]
P
0.020 or less
0.1 max
[0025]
S
0.020 or less
0.05 max
[0026]
N
0.010 or less
0.01 max
[0028]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.005 to 0.200
0.001 to 3
[0029]
B
0 to 0.010
0.001 to 0.010
0.0002 to 0.1
[0037]
V
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.001 to 3
[0030]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.0001 to 3
[0033]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.005 to 5.0
[0035]
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.005 to 5
[0034]
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.001 to 3
[0031]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
0.005 to 5
[0036]
Co
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 1.00
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0039]
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0038]
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0039]
Zr
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.010
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Balance
[0009]
Bainite
80.0 or more
30 to 100%
[0021]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
-
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
-
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
980 MPa or more
[0008]-[0009], [0021]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite is 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of Hayashi overlaps with applicant’s disclosed heating, finish hot rolling, cooling then winding, and retaining conditions (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]).
Applicant
Hayashi
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Reheating
1100 to 1300°C
To prevent high rolling resistance and grain coarsening
[0040]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Hot Rolling
Not less than Ar point or higher
[0010], [0041]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
Preferably 500 to 700°C
Preferably 20°C/sec to 1000°C/sec
[0042]-[0043]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
Holding
400 to 700°C
1 to 100,000 seconds (0.0003 to 28 hours)
[0044]-[0045]
With respect to processing, Hayashi is silent to hot rolling rough rolling at 1000°C or higher with a rolling reduction of more than 65%.
Gaganov discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0062]-[0070]) that is hot rolled with a rough rolling completion temperature of 1000°C or higher (950 to 1250°C) and a total reduction of more than 65% (at least 50%) ([0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Hayashi during hot rolling to rough roll at 950 to 1250°C with a reduction of at least 50% so that recrystallization processes can proceed to completion in each rough-rolled slab to assure the formation of fine-grain austenite microstructure prior to finish rolling, which achieves optimized toughness and fracture elongation properties of the flat steel product (Gaganov [0065]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The prior art discloses a composition (Hayashi [0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure (Hayashi [0021]), tensile strength (Hayashi [0008]-[0009], [0021]), and processing (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]; Gaganov [0064]-[0065]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses an overlapping chemical composition ([0009], [0022]-[0039]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the presence of prior austenite grain boundaries ([0013]).
The limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the claim 1 rejection, the processing of Hayashi in view of Gaganov overlaps with applicant’s disclosed heating, finish hot rolling, cooling then winding, retaining (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]), and rough rolling conditions (Gaganov [0064]-[0065])
The prior art discloses a composition (Hayashi [0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure (Hayashi [0021]), tensile strength (Hayashi [0008]-[0009], [0021]), and processing (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]; Gaganov [0064]-[0065]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the presence of prior austenite grain boundaries ([0013]).
The limitations of in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less have been considered and determined to recite properties that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the claim 1 rejection, the processing of Hayashi in view of Gaganov overlaps with applicant’s disclosed heating, finish hot rolling, cooling then winding, retaining (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]), and rough rolling conditions (Gaganov [0064]-[0065])
The prior art discloses a composition (Hayashi [0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure (Hayashi [0021]), tensile strength (Hayashi [0008]-[0009], [0021]), and processing (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]; Gaganov [0064]-[0065]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 2) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including in the microstructure, an average grain size of prior austenite grains being 10 to 30 um, and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains being 2.0 or less.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0010]-[0011]) comprising an overlapping chemical composition ([0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure ([0021]), and tensile strength ([0008]-[0009], [0021]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Feature
Claim 7
Hayashi Disclosure
Hayashi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.200
0.01 to 0.3
[0022]
Si
0.05 to 2.50
2.0 max
[0023]
Mn
1.00 to 4.00
0.01 to 3.0
[0024]
Sol. Al
0.001 to 2.000
0.005 to 4.0
[0027]
Ti
0.030 to 0.200
0.001 to 3
[0032]
P
0.020 or less
0.1 max
[0025]
S
0.020 or less
0.05 max
[0026]
N
0.010 or less
0.01 max
[0028]
Nb
0 to 0.200
0.001 to 3
[0029]
B
0 to 0.010
0.0002 to 0.1
[0037]
V
0 to 1.00
0.001 to 3
[0030]
Mo
0 to 1.00
0.001 to 3
[0033]
Cu
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 5
[0035]
W
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 5
[0034]
Cr
0 to 1.00
0.001 to 3
[0031]
Ni
0 to 1.00
0.005 to 5
[0036]
Co
0 to 1.00
-
-
Ca
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0039]
Mg
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0038]
REM
0 to 0.010
0.0005 to 0.01
[0039]
Zr
0 to 0.010
-
-
Fe
Remainder
Balance
[0009]
Bainite
80.0 or more
30 to 100%
[0021]
Ferrite
10.0 or less
-
-
Microstructure remainder
10.0 or less
-
-
Tensile Strength
780 MPa or more
980 MPa or more
[0021]
The limitation of a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° about a <110> direction and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about the <110> direction in the bainite is 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2 has been considered and determined to recite a property that results from applicant’s disclosed manufacturing process (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). As presented in the following table, the processing of Hayashi overlaps with applicant’s disclosed heating, finish hot rolling, cooling then winding, and retaining conditions (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]).
Applicant
Hayashi
Heating
1200°C or higher
1.0hour or longer
[0077]-[0078]
Reheating
1100 to 1300°C
To prevent high rolling resistance and grain coarsening
[0040]
Hot Rolling
Rough rolling 1000°C or higher
Reduction more than 65%
Finish rolling 860 to 980°C
[0079]-[0084]
Hot Rolling
Not less than Ar point or higher
[0010], [0041]
Cooling then Winding
570 to 620°C
20°C/s or higher
[0085]-[0088]
Cooling then Coiling
Preferably 500 to 700°C
Preferably 20°C/sec to 1000°C/sec
[0042]-[0043]
Retaining
500 to 580°C
2.0 hours or more
[0089]-[0091]
Holding
400 to 700°C
1 to 100,000 seconds (0.0003 to 28 hours)
[0044]-[0045]
With respect to processing, Hayashi is silent to hot rolling rough rolling at 1000°C or higher with a rolling reduction of more than 65%.
Gaganov discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0062]-[0070]) that is hot rolled with a rough rolling completion temperature of 1000°C or higher (950 to 1250°C) and a total reduction of more than 65% (at least 50%) ([0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Hayashi during hot rolling to rough roll at 950 to 1250°C with a reduction of at least 50% so that recrystallization processes can proceed to completion in each rough-rolled slab to assure the formation of fine-grain austenite microstructure prior to finish rolling, which achieves optimized toughness and fracture elongation properties of the flat steel product (Gaganov [0065]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The prior art discloses a composition (Hayashi [0009], [0022]-[0039]), microstructure (Hayashi [0021]), tensile strength (Hayashi [0008]-[0009], [0021]), and processing (Hayashi [0010], [0040]-[0045]; Gaganov [0064]-[0065]) that is substantially similar to the claimed composition (claim 1) and the process to form the claimed hot-rolled steel sheet (applicant’s specification [0075]-[0091]). Therefore, the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including a total density of a length L7 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 7° and a length L68 of a grain boundary having a crystal orientation difference of 68° about a <110> direction in the bainite being 0.35 to 0.60 um/um2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Hayashi in view of Venkatasurya, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses the presence of prior austenite grain boundaries ([0013]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Hayashi to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (JP 2005-068548 machine translation) in view of Venkatasurya (WO 2017/108966 with citations from US 2019/0003007) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Furuhashi (JP 2006-022390 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that the claimed prior austenite average grain size and ratio Ld/Sd do not naturally flow from the disclosure of Hayashi in view of Venkatasurya, then the below rejection in view of Furuhashi is applied.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses the presence of prior austenite grain boundaries ([0013]).
Furuhashi discloses a hot-rolled steel sheet ([0022]) in the microstructure an average grain size of prior austenite grains is 10 to 30 um (20 um or less), and a ratio ld/Sd between a long axis ld and a short axis Sd of the prior austenite grains is 2.0 or less (5.0 or less) ([0013], [0048], [0051]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel of Hayashi to have an average grain size of prior austenite grains of 20 um or less and a ratio ld/Sd of prior austenite grains of 5.0 or less so that voids are less likely to occur during bending, resulting in cracks (Furuhashi [0051]) and so that the variation in bendability in width direction of the coil becomes significant (Furuhashi [0052]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735