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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 8-10 are pending and are presented for this examination. Claims 2-7 and 11-19 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 8-10 are amended.
Status of Previous Rejection
103 rejections over Kajima of claim 1 are withdrawn.
New grounds of rejections are rendered in view of amendment of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kajima (JP2000144259A) in view of Wikipedia_Tempering (NPL document “Ttempering(metallurgy)” published on 10/03/2021).
As for claim 1, Kajima discloses manufacturing a high strength hot rolled steel sheet. In Table 2 Examples 9 has TS 830 N/mm2, hole expansion 109%, hot rolling finish temperature 859 degree C, which is above Ar3, followed by cooling the steel sheet at a primary cooling rate of 50 degree C/s and winding at 350 degree C. Hence, cooling to a temperature less than 400 degree C before winding the cooled steel sheet into a coil as required by instant claim 1 is expected.
Abstract line 6 also suggests the final microstructure is acicular ferrite structure.
Kajima explicitly discloses an acicular ferrite structure is obtained after a secondary cooling which is after winding. (English translation Page 4)
Table 1 Example 9 has C 0.05%, Mn 2% and Cr 0.3%. Mn 2% is considered close to claimed Mn 0.03- 1.93%. In addition, broad range of Mn <=2.5% (abstract) overlaps claimed 0.03- 1.93% absent criticality of Mn range. It should also be noted Table 2 Example 6 has Mn=1.92% which is within Mn range.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
It is well established that a prior art reference that discloses a range that overlaps a claimed range, or encompasses a somewhat narrower claimed range, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See /n re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, when the claimed ranges are completely encompassed by the prior art, the obviousness conclusion is even more compelling than in cases of mere overlap. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. A prima facie case of obviousness also exists in those cases where the claimed range and the prior art range, though not overlapping, are sufficiently close that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same or similar properties. Id.; see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (In response to an argument by an Appellant that there must be an overlap between the claimed range and prior art range to find obviousness, the Court stated “[t]he nonbinding holding in [a previous case], however, does not stand for the proposition advanced by Appellants that a claimed range and prior art range must overlap for an examiner to find a prima facie case.”).
Kajima differs from instant claim 1 such that it does not disclose reheating above 500 C and below Ac1.
Wikipedia_tempering discloses tempering is a heat treatment technique applied to ferrous alloy such as steel to achieve greater toughness by decreasing the hardness of the alloy. (Page 1 Introduction paragraph 1). Tempering is accomplished by controlled heating of the quenched workpiece to a temperature below its lower critical temperature (Ac1) which is a ferrite to austenite phase transformation temperature. When increased toughness is desired at the expense of strength, higher tempering temperature such as 370-540 C are used.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply a higher tempering temperature above 500 C but below Ac1 as suggested by Wikipedia_tempering, in the process of Kajima for the benefit of achieving greater toughness as Wikipedia_tempering discloses tempering is a heat treatment technique applied to ferrous alloy such as steel to achieve greater toughness by decreasing the hardness of the alloy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kajima (JP2000144259A) in view of Wikipedia_tempering as applied to claim 1, and further in Larrin (NPL document “What happens during tempering of steel?”).
As for claim 8, Larrin further discloses (Page 19) that the higher the tempering temperature, the faster the diffusion of elements and therefore more rapid tempering. Looking at the Figure (Page 19), reaching a point labeled as “16” takes over 100 hours at 450 degree C and less than 15 minutes at 550 degree C. Hence, Larrin suggests tempering temperature depends on a time duration of tempering process as illustrated in Figure of Page 19.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kajima (JP2000144259A) in view of Wikipedia_tempering as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WorldofSteel (NPL document “Continuous Annealing and Batch Annealing”).
As for claims 9-10, WorldOfSteel discloses two types of annealing maybe used which are bath annealing or continuous annealing. Continuous annealing is a constant process without variation. Hence, continuous annealing by the virtue of the shorter annealing times produces material with a finer grain size than batch annealing. A finer grain size results in higher strength.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art, at the time the invention is made to apply continuous annealing to achieve reduced heating times as suggested by WordofSteel, in the tempering process of Kajima in view of Wikipedia_tempering for finer grain size.
Response to Argument
Applicant argues on 07/20/2026 that Hughes is directed specially to steel with a martensite structure, argument is moot since Hughes is withdrawn.
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 JENNY R WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5515. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/JENNY R WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights