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
Claims 1-25 have been cancelled; Claims 26, 29, and 34 have been amended; Claims 26-35 remain for Examination, wherein claim 26 is an independent claim.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous objection of claim 26 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/23/2025.
Previous objection of claim 34 because of the informalities is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/23/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 26 and 29 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/23/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 26-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami Shogo et al (JP 2018062692 A1, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’692) in view of Edelman et al (US-PG-pub 2013/0202914 A1, thereafter PG’914).
JP’692 in view of PG’914 is applied to the instant claims 26-35 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 9/26/2025.
Regarding the amended features in the instant claims 26, 29, and 34, the amendments do not change the scope of the instant claims.
Notes: Edelman et al (US-PG-pub 2010/0215539 A1) is cited as a reference only.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 26-35 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amended features as claimed in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has been stated above.
The Applicant’s arguments have been summarized as following:
1, Shogo et al (JP’692) has different alloy composition requirements since instant claim 26 does not require the additional optional elements including Ti, Zr, Cu, Ni, Co, Ca, REM, Mg, Li, Pb, Bi, and Al as disclosed in Shogo et al (JP’692).
2, Shogo et al (JP’692) does not specify the cooling conditions after hot rolling and coiling condition as claimed in the instant claim and Shogo et al (JP’692) pursue extra step of spherodized annealing, which does not required for the instant invention.
3, Depended claims 27-35 are also allowable
In response,
Regarding the argument 1, it is noted that the instant claim(s) does not excluding adding additional optional elements in the alloy.
Regarding the arguments 2-3, Firstly, as pointed out in the rejection for the instant claim 26 above and in the previous office action dated 9/26/2025: all of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by JP’692 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges as recited in the instant claim. JP’692 teaches heating to temperature 1100-1300oC before hot-rolling (par.[0059] of JP’692); hot-rolling at temperature at temperature range 800-1000oC (par.[0060] of JP’692); cooling at rate 2-20oC/s (par.[0062]; and coiling (par.[0064] of JP’692), which reads on all of the essential process steps as claimed in the instant claim. JP’692 teaches applying spheroidizing annealing (par.[0065] of JP’692) and including F+P > 93area% wherein F is 75 area % or more (par.[0055] of JP’692), which overlaps the claimed microstructures as claimed in the instant claim 26, which creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. Secondly, PG’914 further teaches a manufacturing process for a steel trip by twin roll caster (Fig.1, abstract and claims of PG’914). Thirdly, there is no limitation in the instant claim to exclude extra step of spherodized annealing as argued.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. 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.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734