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 copy of WO 2021/123880, the WIPO publication of PCT/IB2019/061000 filed December 18, 2019.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed November 4, 2025. Applicant’s arguments were persuasive. However, upon further consideration new 112(b) rejections are made. This is a second non-final rejection.
Claims Filing Date
November 4, 2025
Amended
19, 22
New
39, 40
Cancelled
1-18
Pending
19-40
Withdrawn
23, 28-38
Under Examination
19-22, 24-27, 39, 40
The applicant argues claim 19 has been amended to include some limitations of claim 22 and as supported by [00145] and claims 39 and 40 are supported by Tables 1 and 3 (Remarks p. 9 para. 1).
Claim 23 is currently withdrawn per applicant’s 3/25/25 response to the 9/27/25 restriction requirement. The yield strength YS of between 450 MPa and 550 MPa of withdrawn dependent claim 23 is distinct from the yield YS of between 350 MPa and 450 MPa of independent claim 19.
Withdrawn Abstract Objections
The following objections are withdrawn due to Abstract amendment:
Legal phraseology.
“is of less than” (line 7) being grammatically incorrect.
Response to Remarks filed November 4, 2025
Fujita in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-14, filed November 4, 2026, with respect to Fujita in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Fujita in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues Fujita requires at least 20% ferrite (Remarks p. 11 para. 5) and in Ogawa the overall ferrite fraction is at least 80%, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Fujita to have both the unrecrystallized ferrite fraction and the overall ferrite fraction of at least 80%, which is outside the claimed range of ferrite of between 10% and 50% (Remarks para. spanning pp. 11-12) and the tensile strength obtained by Ogawa is 390-500 MPa (Ogawa [0030]), but the tensile strength of Fujita is at least 850 MPa (Fujita [0015]) (Remarks p. 12 para. 3).
The applicant also persuasively argues the combined fraction of self-tempered martensite and lower bainite of Drillet ‘459 does not convey information regarding the fraction of self-tempered martensite alone (Remarks p. 13 para. 2) and that Drillet ‘017 discloses a hot-stamped part (Remarks p. 14 para. 4).
The microstructure of Drillet ‘017 is directed to the hot-stamped part, whereas the pending claims and Fujita are directed to a cold-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
Akioka in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-14, filed November 4, 2026, with respect to Akioka in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection Akioka in view of either one of Drillet ‘459 or Drillet ‘017 and optionally in view of Ogawa have been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues the same arguments against Akioka as those directed to Fujita (Remarks p. 16).
The applicant persuasively argues Akioka requires 0.2 to 0.8 vol fraction ferrite and in Ogawa the overall ferrite fraction is at least 80%, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Akioka to have both the unrecrystallized ferrite fraction and the overall ferrite fraction of at least 80%, which is outside the claimed range of ferrite of between 10% and 50% (Remarks para. spanning pp. 11-12) and the tensile strength obtained by Ogawa is 390-500 MPa (Ogawa [0030]), but the tensile strength of Akioka is about 1000 MPa (Akioka Table 3) (Remarks p. 12 para. 3).
The applicant also persuasively argues the combined fraction of self-tempered martensite and lower bainite of Drillet ‘459 does not convey information regarding the fraction of self-tempered martensite alone (Remarks p. 13 para. 2) and Drillet ‘017 discloses a hot-stamped part (Remarks p. 14 para. 4).
The microstructure of Drillet ‘017 is directed to the hot-stamped part, whereas the pending claims and Fujita are directed to a cold-rolled and annealed steel sheet.
New Grounds
Upon further consideration new 112(b) rejections are made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-22, 24-27, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 lines 18-27 “between…and…” renders the claim indefinite. Microstructure and properties of the steel sheet are claimed as having values between two numbers. Do the ranges include the recited endpoints or do the ranges exclude the endpoints? For example, does “between 34% and 80% of bainite” have a range of bainite of 34% to 80% or a range of more than 34% and less than 80%?
Claim 19 lines 20 and 22-23 “surface fraction” renders the claim indefinite. Does this limitation refer to a fraction that is on the surface of the steel sheet? If so, how deep on the surface? Alternatively, does it refer to a fraction of a measurement surface such that the units are similar to area% and the location can be anywhere within the steel sheet? Further, what is the difference between “a surface fraction…, with respect to the whole microstructure” in lines 22-23 and “a fraction…with respect to the whole microstructure” in line 24?
Claim 19 lines 20-21 “between 10% and 50% of ferrite, wherein a surface fraction of uncrystallized ferrite, with respect to the whole microstructure, being less than 30%” renders the claim indefinite. Is the unrecrystallized ferrite in addition to the ferrite such that the microstructure has between 10% and 50% ferrite and, separately, less than 30% unrecrystallized ferrite? Alternatively, is the unrecrystallized ferrite part of the ferrite such that the less than 30% unrecrystallized ferrite is part of the between 10% and 50% ferrite?
Claim 40 line 2 “between 780 MPa and 835 MPa” renders the claim indefinite. Does this range include the recited endpoints or do the ranges exclude the endpoints, such that, for “between 780 MPa and 835 MPa” the tensile strength is 780 MPa to 835 MPa or a range of more than 780 MPa and less than 835 MPa?
Claims 20-22, 24-27, and 39 are rejected as depending from claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-22, 24-27, 39, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, such as Fujita (JP 2005-281854 machine translation) and Akioka (JP 2010-138458 machine translation), discloses the claimed composition (Fujita [0022]-[0051]; Akioka [0015]-[0024]), microstructure consisting of bainite, martensite, and ferrite (Fujita [0017]-[0020]; Akioka [0024]-[0028]), and mechanical properties (Fujita [0001], [0008]-[0010], [0017]-[0019], [0074], Tables 3-5), but are silent to limiting unrecrystallized ferrite and the martensite consisting of self-tempered martensite and fresh martensite.
Prior art, such as Ogawa (US 2012/0282487), discloses limiting unrecrystallized ferrite (Ogawa [0019]), but is directed to a different microstructure than that claimed.
Prior art, such as Drillet ‘459(WO 2016/198906 with citations from US 2018/0171459) or Drillet ‘017 (WO 2017/006144 with citations from US 2018/0202017), discloses the presence of self-tempered martensite (Drillet ‘459 [0094]-[0095]; Drillet ‘017 [0092]), but does not render it obvious in combination with the remainder of the claimed microstructure.
Therefore, the prior art does not teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, a cold-rolled and annealed steel sheet having the claim composition with the claimed microstructure “consisting of” and the claimed mechanical properties.
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 at 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