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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Responsive to the amendment filed 7 October 2025, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are amended. Claims 1-5 are currently under examination.
Status of Previous Rejections
Responsive to the amendment filed 7 October 2025 the rejections based on Kimura are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0202020 A1 (hereinafter “Han”).
Han teaches a steel sheet that is “excellent” in bake-hardenability (see Title, [0001]). Han teaches that the steel has excellent aging properties (see Title, [0001]). Han teaches a steel sheet with composition overlapping the claimed range ([0014]-[0021] or claims 1-3). Han teaches examples of steel compositions falling in the claimed range (See EXAMPLES and Table 1). One such Example is Specimen No 1, shown in Table 1 thru 3. The composition of the steel sheet of Han is compared with the claimed composition in the chart below (all values in mass percent).
Element
Claim 1
Han (broad composition)
Han Specimen 1
C
Mn
P
S
N
s-Al
Cr
Fe/impurity
0.002-0.015
1.5-3.0
0.03 or less
0.01 or less
0.01 or less
0.02-0.06
1.2 or less
balance
0.002-0.012
1.6-2.7
0.03 or less
0.01 or less
0.01 or less
0.02-0.06
1.0 or less
balance
0.0023
2.54
0.011
0.007
0.003
0.025
0.52
balance
The broad composition overlaps the claimed ranges. The composition of Specimen 1 falls entirely inside of the claimed ranges, anticipating the entire ranges. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2131.03.
Han teaches the steel has a composition including ferrite and martensite (see [[0017]-[0022] and Table 2). Han teaches a process of making the steel including cold rolling, annealing (See [0023]-[0025]). Han teaches examples of steel processed in such a way (see Table 2). Han teaches that the Specimen 1 includes 1.8% martensite (Table 2), falling in the range claimed and anticipating the entire range.
Han does not describe any value for a ratio V, being a ratio of a number of hard structures observed at a grain boundary triple point, to a sum of number of hard structures observed at a triple point and at a grain boundary. Han does not endeavor to count the hard structures in this way. However this limitation is inherent in the steel. In a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, there is no limit to the “observation region.” Thus when an observation region is defined as a single hard structure at a grain boundary triple point, the ratio V necessarily becomes unity (1/ (1+0) = 1, or 100%). This is considered an inherent property of the Formula 1, and would hold true for the steel of Han.
In addition to this, Han teaches that the steel sheet has the same composition as claimed, has the same bake hardening property as claimed, has the same microstructure as claimed, and is processed in a matter that is similar to what is described by applicant. The same steel sheet as claimed, having the same composition and microstructure, and the same properties of bake hardening, would have had the unmeasured property described by Equation 1 as well, inherently. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Han teaches the steel Specimen 1 has 96.4% ferrite and martensite (see Table 2).
Regarding claim 3, Han does not describe a value of Hel, as described in Equation 2. Han does not describe any Equation 2 or a value.
However, Han teaches steel Specimen 1, from which a value of Hel can be calculated. Thus, Hel = 0.0023 + 0.5 * 2.54 + 0.75 * 0.52 = 1.66. The value of Hel inherently falls in the range as claimed, and thus Han anticipates the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Han Specimen 1 includes no mention of Si, reading on 0 (Table 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Han teaches a BH value of 52 MPa for Specimen 1 (Table 3). Han teaches an aging YP-El value of 0 for Specimen 1 (Table 3). These values fall in the ranges as claimed, anticipating the ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because of new grounds of rejection.
It is not believed that Kimura teaches the steel with the new limitation requiring 2% or less martensite, when Kimura appears to require 3% martensite.
Applicant argues that the observation region for determining a V(%) value is clearly disclosed in the specification. While the specification clearly discloses a manner of determining a V value, it is not fairly taken as a definition of what is meant by “observation region” in such a context. The examiner’s interpretation stands where applicant can easily incorporate such a limitation to the observation region at any time but has to this point not chosen so to do. New grounds of rejection are applied.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6510. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
CHRISTOPHER S. KESSLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/CHRISTOPHER S KESSLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1759