DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
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 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 December 23, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
December 23, 2025
Amended
1, 5
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Withdrawn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 1 and 5 limit bending radius R/t of 0.5 or less in [0103]-[0104] of the originally filed specification (Remarks p. 9 para. 2).
Response to Remarks filed December 23, 2025
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda; Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda; Yong in view of Fuda as evidenced by NM500
The applicant argues Fuda is non-analogous art (Remarks p. 9 paras. 2-3) because it is a different field of endeavor of high-strength hot-rolled steel plate, whereas the claims are an abrasion-resistant steel plate used in applications requiring surface wear resistance and high surface hardness (Remarks p. 9 para. 4) and it addresses a different problem of improving shape after cutting (Remarks p. 11 para. 2), whereas the claims improve wide bending workability (Remarks para. spanning pp. 10-11).
Contrary to applicant’s argument, Fuda is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of manufacturing a wide steel plate (200 mm or more width, applicant’s claim 1; 600 to 2300 mm width, Fuda [0007]) with a cooling rate that does not exceed 5°C/sec in the width (transverse) direction (applicant’s specification [0086]; Fuda [0032]-[0033]) to prevent undesirable non-uniformity (Fuda [0032]) caused by thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0033]). Applicant’s claimed transverse (width) direction hardness difference of 30Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness towards uniformity (applicant’s claim 1). Therefore Fuda is proper for use in an obviousness rejection. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
The applicant argues against a reasonable expectation of success that applying Fuda’s cooling method to the abrasion-resistant steels of Harada ‘188 or Yong would achieve the now claimed superior wide bending workability (Remarks p. 11 para. 5) because Fuda teaches suppressing cooling rate variations prevents meandering on the run-out table (ROT), shape defects, and increases in residual stress (Fuda [0032]) and is silent to the impact of the cooling conditions on bending workability (para. spanning pp. 11-12).
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). Fuda discloses a variation in the cooling rate during quenching after hot rolling does not exceed 5°C/sec in the width (transverse) direction advantageously prevents 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]).
Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate (Harada ‘188 [0001]) with an overlapping composition (Harada ‘188 [0048]-[0074]), volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface (Harada ‘188 [0077]-[0078]), Brinell hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface (Harada ‘188 [0075]-[0076]), limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less (Harada ‘188 [0118]), and width (Fuda [0007]) processed with a controlled cooling rate variation during quenching (Fuda [0032]-[0033]), which renders obvious the claimed transverse direction hardness difference.
Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda renders obvious a wide steel plate (Fuda [0007]) with prevented undesirable non-uniformity (Fuda [0032]) and temperature variation control that prevents thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0033]). Since the steel plate of Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda it uniform, then, absent evidence to the contrary, the limit bending radius of Harada ‘188 [0118] being uniform across the width of the steel plate naturally flows, rendering the claim obvious.
Similarly, Yong in view of Fuda discloses an abrasion-resistant steel plate (Yong Introduction) with an overlapping composition (Yong Experimental Material and Experimental Method, Table 1), volume fraction of martensite at a depth of 1 mm from a surface (Static Continuous Cooling Transformation (CCT) Curve, Static Continuous Cooling Transformation Microstructure, Figures 2, 3), Brinell hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface (Yong The Relationship of Toughness and Microstructure, Table 2), and width (Fuda [0007]) processed with a controlled cooling rate variation during quenching (Fuda [0032]-[0033]), which renders obvious the claimed transverse direction hardness difference. The limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed abrasion-resistant steel plate that naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
The applicant argues the claimed limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less highlights a significant and unexpected advantageous property of the invention as explained in [0012]-[0013] of the originally filed specification bending workability deteriorates as width increases (Remarks p. 12 para. 2).
Objective evidence must be factually supported by appropriate evidence. MPEP 716.01(c)(I). Evidence to substantiate the allegation that the limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less is significant and unexpected has not been presented. In applicant’s specification, [0107] Table 3, includes Comparative Examples 16 and 21, which both have a limit bending radius R/t of 5.0 or less, suggesting that this feature is achievable outside of the inventive abrasion-resistant steel plate.
The applicant argues Harada discloses R/t of 5.0 or less in Tables 2-4 for 50 mm width test pieces (Harada [0118]), which do not address the technical difficulty in wide 200 mm plates (Remarks p. 12 para. 2).
Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda discloses 600 to 2300 mm wide plates (Fuda [0007]) with a variation in cooling rate in the width (transverse) direction that does not exceed 5°C/sec after hot rolling to prevent non-uniformity, where temperature variation results in thermal distortion and excessive residual stress (Fuda [0032]-[0033]). Therefore, in widening the plate of Harada ‘188 according to the combination with Fuda one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the properties of the plate to maintain uniformity, including the R/t of 5.0 or less (Harada ‘188 Tables 2-4).
For the above cited reasons the pending rejections of Harada ‘188 in view of Fuda, Harada ‘188 in view of Li and Fuda, and Yong in view of Fuda as evidenced by NM500 are maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment a new grounds of rejection over Shikanai in view of Fuda is applied.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 22 “bending text accordance with” is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 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]
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
Ti
B
0.005 to 0.020
0.005 to 0.020
0.0003 to 0.0030
0.005 to 0.025
0.005 to 0.030
0.0001 to 0.0018
[0059]
[0060]
[0061]
[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.
Claims 1-2 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]
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
Ti
B
0.005 to 0.020
0.005 to 0.020
0.0003 to 0.0030
0.005 to 0.025
0.005 to 0.030
0.0001 to 0.0018
[0059]
[0060]
[0061]
[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]).
Claims 1-2 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
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
Ti
B
0.005 to 0.020
0.005 to 0.020
0.0003 to 0.0030
-
Added
-
-
≤ 0.50
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shikanai (KR 940000823 machine translation) in view of Fuda (JP 2000-212688 machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Shikanai discloses an abrasion (wear)-resistant steel plate (p. 2 para. 12) with an overlapping composition (p. 3 paras. 6-7, p. 4 para. 9 to p. 5 para. 12),
Element
Claims 1 and 2
Shikanai Disclosure
Shikanai Citation
C
0.15 to 0.30
0.05 to 0.45
p. 4 para. 10
Si
0.05 to 1.00
0.1 to 1.0
Para. span. Pp. 10-11
Mn
0.50 to 2.00
0.1 to 2.0
p. 5 para. 2
P
0.020 or less
-
-
S
0.010 or less
-
-
Al
0.01 to 0.06
Cr
0.10 to 1.00
0.1 to 3.0
p. 5 para. 8
N
0.0100 or less
-
-
Fe
Balance
Balance
p. 4 para. 9
At least one of:
One or more of:
Nb
Ti
B
0.005 to 0.020
0.005 to 0.020
0.0030
0.005 to 0.5
0.1 to 1.5
0.0003 to 0.01
p. 5 para. 11
p. 5 paras. 3-4
p. 5 para. 10
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
o 0.5
0.1 to 2.0
0.1 to 10.0
0.1 to 3.0
0.01 to 0.5
-
-
p. 5 para. 6
p. 5 para. 7
p. 5 para. 9
p. 5 para. 12
-
-
One or more of:
Ca
Mg
REM
0.0005 to 0.0050
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.0005 to 0.0200
-
-
-
-
-
-
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 (microscopic structure of martensite) (p. 3 para. 12),
hardness at a depth of 1 mm from the surface if 420 HBW 10/3000 to 560 HBW 10/3000 in Brinell hardness (Brinell hardness as much as 400 and up to 500) (p. 4 paras. 3, 8)
a width of the abrasion-resistant steel plate is 200 mm or more (test piece 150-200 mm wide) (p. 3 para. 10), and
a limit bending radius R/t is 5.0 or less being determined by a bending test using a bending test piece of 200 mm in width (150-200 mm wide test piece with a maximum critical bending radius of 3.0 in terms of the thickness of the test piece) (p. 3 para. 11).
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 limit bending radius R/t being determined by a bending test according with JIS Z 2248 with a bending angle of 180° using a bending test piece of 300 mm in length has been considered and determined to recite the process of determining the limit bending radius R/t. 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).
Shikanai is silent to a transverse direction hardness difference of 30 Hv10 or less in Vickers hardness.
Shikanai discloses manufacturing including cooling (p. 6 para. 9 to p. 7 para. 2).
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 Shikanai 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.
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).
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