CTFR 17/999,214 CTFR 92200 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 2020-093662 filed May 28, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of a copy of WO 2021/241606, the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2021/019890 filed May 25, 2021. Claim Status This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claims and Remark Amendments filed May 1, 2026. Claims Filing Date May 1, 2026 Amended 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 14 Cancelled 3, 4, 11, 12 Pending 1, 2, 5-10, 13, 14 Withdrawn 5-10, 13, 14 Under Examination 1, 2 The applicant argues support for the claim amendments in original claim 2 and [0025] (p. 9 para. 2). Applicant’s specification at [0046] discloses “Ti: 0.005 % to 0.020 %”. Withdrawn Claim Objection The following objection is withdrawn due to claim amendment: Claim 1 line 22 “bending test accordance with”. Response to Remarks filed May 1, 2026 Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 with respect to Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Steel I, which falls within the claim scope and overlaps with Harada, in Example 15 has a hardness difference of 18 Hv10 and an R/t of 4.5, but in Comparative Examples 29-34 under cooling conditions outside the scope of the invention have a transverse hardness difference of 59-92 Hv10 and limit bending radius R/t of 6.0-7.5, such that the composition does not inherently result in R/t ≤ 5.0 (p. 11 paras. 1-2). With respect to a limit bending radius R/t, Harada ‘188 discloses 2.8 or less ([0118]), which overlaps with the claimed 5.0 or less and is within the scope of applicant’s inventive example, but outside the scope of applicant’s comparative examples. With respect to a hardness difference Hv10, Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda discloses controlling cooling rate in the width (transverse) direction to not exceed 5°C/sec (Fuda [0032]-[0033]) to prevent undesirable non-uniformity (Fuda [0032]) and temperature variation that results in thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0033]). The claimed hardness difference naturally flows from the prior art’s disclosed composition (Harada ‘188 [0048]-[0074]), microstructure (Harada ‘188 [0077]-[0078]), surface hardness (Harada ‘188 [0075]-[0076]), limit bending radius (Harada ‘188 [0118]), width (Fuda [0007]), and cooling rate variation (Fuda [0032]-[0033]). The applicant argues Fuda controls cooling to reduce residual stress and prevent shape defects, not to control crack propagation in abrasion-resistant steel, such that applying Fuda to Harada does not necessarily yield the claimed invention (p. 11 para. 2). In response to applicant's argument that Fuda does not control cooling to control crack propagation in abrasion-resistant steel, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya , 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Fuda discloses controlling the variation in cooling rate in the width (transverse) direction to not exceed 5°C/s ([0032]-[0033]). Similarly, applicant’s specification recites a cooling rate different or 5°C/s or less to achieve the claimed difference in Vickers hardness (applicant’s specification [0086]). Therefore, the same control of the cooling rate variation (difference) would be expected to yield the same results, including the claimed difference in Vickers hardness. The applicant argues that even if Comparative Examples 16 and 21 achieve R/t ≤ 5.0, they also fail to achieve the required martensite volume fraction and have surface hardness of 415 HBW and 418 HBW, respectively, which are outside the claimed 420 HBW minimum (p. 11 para. 3), where it is predictable a softer steel will bend easily (para. spanning pp. 11-12). Harada ‘188 discloses an abrasion (wear)-resistant steel plate ([0001]) including an overlapping martensite volume fraction of 90% or more ([0077]-[0078]), R/t of 5.0 or less (2.8 or less) ([0118]), and hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface of 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 ([0075]-[0076]), such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda is maintained. Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed May 1, 2026 with respect to Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the above cited reasons regarding Harada ‘188 and Fuda and that Li also fails to teach R/t of 5.0 or less for a 200 mm wide piece in an exceptionally hard (420 to 560 HBW) steel plate (p. 12 paras. 4-6). For the above cited reasons, the arguments directed to Harada ‘188 and Fuda were not persuasive. The pending rejection of Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda discloses 90% or more martensite (Harada ‘188 [0077]-[0078]) with a hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface of 420 HBW 10/2000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 (460 to 590 HBW 10/3000) (Harada ’18 [0075]-[0076]) and a limit being radius R/t of 5.0 or less (2.8 or less) (Harada ‘188 [0118]) for a 200 mm or more steel plate that has good shape after cutting (Fuda [0001], [0006]-[0009]) manufactured with uniform cooling with a small temperature difference between the horizontal and vertical directions of the steel plate for good surface quality and a uniform and consistent final organization (microstructure) (Li [0016], [0032]). Therefore, the rejection of Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda is maintained. Yong in view of Fuda as evidenced by NM500 The applicant argues amended claim 1 requires “Ti: 0.005 % to 0.020 %”, but neither Yong nor NM500 expressly disclose specific Ti content (p. 13 para. 4). Yong discloses adding Ti (Table 1), and, as evidenced by NM500 the Ti range is up to 0.50 (4. NM500 Chemical Composition). The claimed ranges lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). The applicant argues the Steel I data, Example 15 and Comparative Examples 29-34, do not necessarily result in an R/t of 5.0 or less for a 200 mm wide plate (p. 13 para. 5). Yong in view of Fuda as evidenced by NM500 discloses an overlapping composition (Yong Experimental Material and Experimental Methods, Table 1; NM500 para. 4), microstructure (Static Continuous Cooling Transformation (CCT) Curve, Static Continuous Cooling Transformation Microstructure, Figs 2, 3), surface hardness (Yong The Relationship of Toughness with Microstructure, Table 2), and width (Fuda [0007]). Further, the relationship between cooling rate and hardness is disclosed (Yong The Microhardness Test, Figure 4) in combination with controlling a variation in cooling rate in the width that does not exceed 5°C/sec to improve uniformity and prevent distortion and stress (Fuda [0032]-[0033]). Yong discloses the entire microstructure is all (100%) martensite when the cooling rate is more than 12.5°C/s (Statis Continuous Cooling Transformation (CCT) Curve, Static Continuous Cooling Transformation Microstructure, Figures 2, 3). In contrast applicant’s Comparative Examples 29-34 have volume fractions of martensite of 65-85%, which are both outside the claim scope and the disclosure of Yong. Furthermore, Yong discloses surface hardness of 513-521 HB (The Relationship of Toughness with Microstructure, Table 2), whereas applicant’s Comparative Examples 29-32 are 378-418 HB, which is outside the claim scope. Finally, applicant’s Comparative Example 8 has a cooling rate difference of 8°C/s, which is outside of the scope of Fuda. Therefore, the argued evidence of Comparative Examples 29-34 are outside of the claim scope and the disclosure of Yong. For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Yong in view of Fuda as evidenced by NM500 is maintained. Shikanai in view of Fuda 07-38-01 AIA Applicant’s arguments, see p. 14 paras. 4-5 , filed May 1, 2026 , with respect to Shikanai have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Shikanai in view of Fuda has been withdrawn. The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 1 requires “Ti: 0.005 % to 0.020 %”, but Shikanai requires 0.1 to 1.5 wt% Ti (claims, Table 1) to form TiC particles for wear resistance (p. 14 para. 4), which does not overlap (p. 14 para. 5). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘188 (JP 2018-059188 machine translation) in view of Fuda (JP 2000-212688 machine translation) . Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Harada ‘188 discloses an abrasion(wear)-resistant steel plate ([0001]) comprising a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0048]-[0074]), Element Claims 1 and 2 Harada ‘188 Disclosure Harada ‘188 Citation C 0.15 to 0.30 0.23 to 0.34 [0049] Si 0.05 to 1.00 0.05 to 1.00 [0050] Mn 0.50 to 2.00 0.050 to 2.00 [0051] P 0.020 or less 0.020 or less [0052] S 0.010 or less 0.050 or less [0053] Al 0.01 to 0.06 0.100 or less [0054] Ti 0.005 to 0.020 0.005 to 0.030 [0061] Cr 0.10 to 1.00 0.05 to 0.90 [0055] N 0.0100 or less 0.0050 or less [0057] Fe Balance Balance [0058] At least one of: One or more of: Nb B 0.005 to 0.020 0.0003 to 0.0030 0.005 to 0.025 0.0001 to 0.0018 [0059] [0060] [0062] One or more of: Cu Ni Mo V W Co 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 3.0 0.1 to 1.0 0.01 to 0.10 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 5.00 0.01 to 2.00 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 1.00 [0063] [0064] [0065] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0069] One or more of: Ca Mg REM 0.0005 to 0.0050 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0200 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0100 [0070] [0071] [0072] [0073] wherein a volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate is 90 % or more ([0077]-[0078]), hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface is 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (460 to 590 HBW 10/3000) ([0075]-[0076]), and a limit bending radius R/t is 5.0 or less (2.8 or less), the limit bending radius R/t being determined by a bending test accordance with JIS Z 2248 with a bending angle of 180° ([0118]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). The limit being radius R/t using a bending test piece of 200 mm in width and 300 mm in length has been considered and determined to recite the process that determines the claimed property. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or characterization. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable. MPEP 2113(I). Harada ‘188 discloses the dimensions of test pieces taken from the steel plate including test pieces with dimensions of 50 mm x 150 mm ([0118]). Harada ‘188 is silent to the width of the steel plate being 200 mm or more. Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate ([0001], [0006]-[0009]) wherein a width is 200 mm or more (600 to 2300 mm) ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the width of the abrasion-resistant steel plate to be 600 to 2300 mm to advantageously have good shape after cutting (Fuda [0007]). Harada ‘188 discloses manufacturing the wear-resistant steel plate ([0083]) by melting ([0084]), heating ([0085]-[0086]), hot rolling ([0087]), then quenching (cooling) ([0088]-[0097]). Harada ‘188 is silent to a transverse direction hardness difference is 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness, the transverse direction hardness difference being defined as a difference in the hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface between two points adjacent at intervals of 10 mm in a transverse direction of the abrasion-resistant steel plate. Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate ([0001], [0006]-[0009]) manufactured with a variation in the cooling rate in the width (transverse) direction that does not exceed 5°C/sec after hot rolling ([0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Harada ‘188 to control the variation in the cooling rate during quenching after hot rolling to not exceed 5°C/sec in the width (transverse) direction to prevent undesirable non-uniformity (Fuda [0032]) and temperature variation in the width (transverse) direction during cooling that results in thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0033]). The process of the prior art (Harada ‘188 [0083]-[0097] in view of Fuda [0032]) is substantially similar to the process disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed abrasion-resistant steel plate (applicant’s claim 5, applicant’s specification [0069]-[0094]), including the difference in average cooling rate being 5°C/s or less (Fuda [0032]; applicant’s specification [0086]), such that a transverse direction hardness difference being 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness, the transverse direction hardness difference being defined as a difference in the hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface between two points adjacent at intervals of 10 mm in a transverse direction of the abrasion-resistant steel plate naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘188 (JP 2018-059188 machine translation) in view of Li (CN 109136482 machine translation) and Fuda (JP 2000-212688 machine translation) . Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Harada ‘188 discloses an abrasion(wear)-resistant steel plate ([0001]) comprising a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0048]-[0074]), Element Claims 1 and 2 Harada ‘188 Disclosure Harada ‘188 Citation C 0.15 to 0.30 0.23 to 0.34 [0049] Si 0.05 to 1.00 0.05 to 1.00 [0050] Mn 0.50 to 2.00 0.050 to 2.00 [0051] P 0.020 or less 0.020 or less [0052] S 0.010 or less 0.050 or less [0053] Al 0.01 to 0.06 0.100 or less [0054] Ti 0.005 to 0.020 0.005 to 0.030 [0061] Cr 0.10 to 1.00 0.05 to 0.90 [0055] N 0.0100 or less 0.0050 or less [0057] Fe Balance Balance [0058] At least one of: One or more of: Nb B 0.005 to 0.020 0.0003 to 0.0030 0.005 to 0.025 0.0001 to 0.0018 [0059] [0060] [0062] One or more of: Cu Ni Mo V W Co 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 3.0 0.1 to 1.0 0.01 to 0.10 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 5.00 0.01 to 2.00 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 1.00 0.01 to 1.00 [0063] [0064] [0065] [0066] [0067] [0068] [0069] One or more of: Ca Mg REM 0.0005 to 0.0050 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0200 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0100 [0070] [0071] [0072] [0073] wherein a volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate is 90 % or more ([0077]-[0078]), hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface is 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (460 to 590 HBW 10/3000) ([0075]-[0076]), and a limit bending radius R/t is 5.0 or less (2.8 or less), the limit bending radius R/t being determined by a bending test accordance with JIS Z 2248 with a bending angle of 180° ([0118]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). The limit being radius R/t using a bending test piece of 200 mm in width and 300 mm in length has been considered and determined to recite the process that determines the claimed property. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production or characterization. If the product is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentability. MPEP 2113(I). Harada ‘188 discloses manufacturing the wear-resistant steel plate ([0083]) by melting ([0084]), heating ([0085]-[0086]), hot rolling ([0087]), then quenching (cooling) ([0088]-[0097]). Harada ‘188 is silent to a transverse direction hardness difference is 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness, the transverse direction hardness difference being defined as a difference in the hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface between two points adjacent at intervals of 10 mm in a transverse direction of the abrasion-resistant steel plate. Li discloses uniform cooling with small temperature difference between the horizontal and vertical directions of the steel plate ([0016], [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Harada ‘188 to have a small temperature difference between the horizontal and vertical directions of the steel plate during processing to achieve good surface quality of the steel plate (Li [0016]) and a uniform and consistent final organization state (Li [0032]). The process of the prior art (Harada ‘188 [0083]-[0097] in view of Li [0016], [0032]) is substantially similar to the process disclosed by applicant to manufacture the claimed abrasion-resistant steel plate (applicant’s claim 5, applicant’s specification [0069]-[0094]), including a small temperature difference during cooling (Li [0016], [0032]; applicant’s specification [0086]) to obtain a uniform and consistent final organization state (Li [0032]), which includes a uniform transverse direction hardness. Difference in concentration or temperature (or hardness variation) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Harada ‘188 discloses the dimensions of test pieces taken from the steel plate including test pieces with dimensions of 50 mm x 150 mm ([0118]). Harada ‘188 in view of Li is silent to the width of the steel plate being 200 mm or more. Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate ([0001], [0006]-[0009]) wherein a width is 200 mm or more (600 to 2300 mm) ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the width of the abrasion-resistant steel plate of Harada ‘188 in view of Li to be 600 to 2300 mm to advantageously have good shape after cutting (Fuda [0007]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (Yong et al. HSLA Steels 2015, Microalloying 2015 & Offshore engineering Steels 2015. The Chinese Society for Metals (CSM) and Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE). TMS, 2016. 829-834.) in view of Fuda (JP 2000-212688 machine translation) as evidenced by NM500 (NM500 Steel: An Abrasion Resistant Steel with 500 HB – Otai Special Steel. https://www.astmsteel.com/product/nm5-steel/ . Accessed 10/2/25.) . Regarding claims 1 and 2 , Yong discloses an abrasion-resistant (wear-resistant) steel plate (Introduction) with an overlapping chemical composition (NM500 para. 4) (Experimental Material and Experimental Method, Table 1), wherein a volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate is 90% or more (entire microstructure is all (100%) martensite when the cooling rate is more than 12.5°C/S) (Static Continuous Cooling Transformation (CCT) Curve, Static Continuous Cooling Transformation Microstructure, Figures 2, 3), and hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface is 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (513-521 HB) (The Relationship of Toughness with Microstructure, Table 2). 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). Element Claims 1 and 2 Young Table 1 NM500 Chemical Composition C 0.15 to 0.30 0.25 ≤ 0.38 Si 0.05 to 1.00 0.39 ≤ 0.70 Mn 0.50 to 2.00 1.22 ≤ 1.70 P 0.020 or less 0.011 ≤ 0.020 S 0.010 or less 0.001 ≤ 0.010 Al 0.01 to 0.06 0.023 ≥ 0.01 Ti 0.005 to 0.020 Added ≤ 0.50 Cr 0.10 to 1.00 Added ≤ 1.50 N 0.0100 or less - - Fe Balance Balance Balance At least one of: One or more of: Nb B 0.005 to 0.020 0.0003 to 0.0030 - - - 0.0005-0.006 One or more of: Cu Ni Mo V W Co 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 3.0 0.1 to 1.0 0.01 to 0.10 0.01 to 0.5 0.01 to 0.5 - - Added Added - - - ≤ 1.00 ≤ 0.65 - - - One or more of: Ca Mg REM 0.0005 to 0.0050 0.0005 to 0.0100 0.0005 to 0.0200 - - - - - - With respect to a transverse direction hardness difference of 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness, the transverse direction hardness being defined as a difference in the hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface between two points adjacent at intervals of 10 mm in a transverse direction of abrasion-resistant steel plate, Yong discloses the relationship between cooling rate and hardness, HV10 (The Microhardness Test, Figure 4). Therefore, based on the disclosure of Yong, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to control the hardness, HV10, by controlling the cooling rate, where a hardness difference of 30Hv10 or less results from a consistent cooling rate with minimal variation across the transverse direction (Yong The Microhardness Test, Figure 4). The cooling rate is a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result of hardness, such that determination of the optimum range of cooling rate to achieve a hardness difference of 30Hv10 or less is characterized as routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). Further, Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate ([0001], [0006]-[0009]) manufactured with a variation in the cooling rate in the width (transverse) direction that does not exceed 5°C/sec after hot rolling ([0032]-[0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Yong to control the variation in the cooling rate during quenching after hot rolling to not exceed 5°C/sec in the width (transverse) direction to prevent undesirable non-uniformity (Fuda [0032]) and temperature variation in the width (transverse) direction during cooling that results in thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0033]). Through this temperature control, a transverse direction hardness difference being 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness, the transverse direction hardness difference being defined as a difference in the hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface between two points adjacent at intervals of 10 mm in a transverse direction of the abrasion-resistant steel plate naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. Yong is silent to a width of the abrasion-resistant steel plate being 200 mm or more. Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate ([0001], [0006]-[0009]) wherein a width is 200 mm or more (600 to 2300 mm) ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the width of the abrasion-resistant steel plate to be 600 to 2300 mm to advantageously have good shape after cutting (Fuda [0007]). A limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less, the limit bending radius R/t being determined by a bending test accordance with JIS Z 2248 with a bending angle of 180° using a bending test piece of 200 mm in width and 300 mm in length has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed abrasion-resistant steel plate. The prior art discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate (Yong Introduction) with a composition (Yong Experimental Material and Experimental Method, Table 1; NM500 para. 4), microstructure (Yong Static Continuous Cooling Transformation (CCT) curve, Static Continuous Cooling Transformation Microstructure, Figures 2, 3), hardness (Yong The Relationship of Toughness with Microstructure, Table 2), width (Fuda [0007]), and hardness difference (Yong The Microhardness Test, Figure 4; Fuda [0032]-[0033]) that renders that claimed obvious, such that the claimed limit being radius R/t of 5.0 or less naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art. Related Art Harada ‘187 (JP 2018-059187 machine translation) Harada ‘187 discloses a wear-resistant steel material with excellent bendability ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0048]-[0074]), volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate of 90 % or more ([0077]-[0078]), and hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface of 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (360 to 490 HBW 10/3000) ([0075]). Terazawa ‘314 (WO 2017/183059 with citations from US 2019/0203314) Terazawa ‘314 discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate with delayed fracture resistance ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0031]-[0074]), volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate of 90 % or more ([0075]-[0078]), and hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface of 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (460 to 590 HBW 10/3000) ([0084]-[0085]). Terazawa ‘860 (WO 2017/183058 with citations from US 2019/0062860) Terazawa ‘860 discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate with delayed fracture resistance ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0031]-[0070]), volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface of the abrasion-resistant steel plate of 90 % or more ([0071]-[0074]), and hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface of 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (360 to 490 HBW 10/3000) ([0080]-[0081]). Hu (CN 104018092 machine translation) Hu discloses a steel plate ([0002]) with a strength difference in the transverse, longitudinal, and 45° directions of less than 20 MPa ([0020]) so that the mechanical properties have good uniformity ([0022]). Kitsuya (US 2023/0203614) Kitsuya, applicant’s related work, discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate with an overlapping amount of martensite, hardness, and transverse direction hardness difference (claim 1). Kitsuya discloses more than 0.30% and 0.45% or less C (claim 1, [0039]), whereas the pending claim recites “C: 0.15 % to 0.30 %”. Takayama (JP 2018-048399 machine translation) Takayama discloses a wear-resistant steel plate have excellent bending workability ([0001], [0011]) with an overlapping composition ([0026]-[0042]), a volume fraction of martensite at a position 1 mm from the steel plate surface of 90% or more ([0043]), and an acceptable R/t of 2.5 or less ([0057], [0063]). Takayama discloses example with surface hardness HBW within the range of 420 to 560 HBW 10/3000 (Tables 4, 6). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. 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, Wednesday-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 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 2 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 3 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 4 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 5 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 6 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 7 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 8 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 9 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 10 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 11 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 12 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 13 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 14 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 15 Art Unit: 1735 Application/Control Number: 17/999,214 Page 16 Art Unit: 1735
Prosecution Insights