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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on April 2, 2026 and April 13, 2026 have 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 certified copies of JP 2020-120973 filed July 14, 2020 and JP 2020-120970 filed July 14, 2020 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Receipt is also acknowledged of WO , a copy of the WIPO publication of PCT/JP2021/017602 filed May 7, 2021.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks and Claim Amendments filed April 2, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 2, 2026
New
43
Amended
16, 29
Cancelled
31, 32, 39-41
Pending
1-30, 33-38, 42, 43
Withdrawn
1-15, 18-23, 25, 27, 34-38
Under Examination
16, 17, 24, 26, 28-30, 33, 42, 43
The applicant argues support for the claim 16 amendment at claim 41, [0007], [0042], [0052], and [0057] and support for new claim 43 at Table 3 (Remarks p. 16 para. 2).
Response to Remarks filed April 2, 2026
Stebbing in view of Otto
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 17 paras. 1-2, filed April 2, 2026, with respect to Stebbing in view of Otto have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Stebbing in view of Otto has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 16 recites a sound pressure at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 30 dB or more than 110 dB or less (Remarks p. 17 para. 1) and the 120-140 dB range disclosed by Otto is outside this range (Remarks p. 17 para. 2).
Yamada in view of Wang ’222 and Stebbing
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 19 paras. 3-4, filed April 2, 2026, with respect to Yamada in view of Wang ’222 and Stebbing have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Yamada in view of Wang ’222 and Stebbing has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues amended claim 16 sound wave irradiates in air (Remarks p. 19 para. 3), but Yamada irradiates with ultrasonic waves in water for washing (Fig. 2) (Remarks p. 19 para. 4). With respect to new claim 43, the applicant persuasively argues a sound pressure being 70 dB or more is outside Wang’s sound pressure level of at most 60 dB (Remarks p. 21 para. 1).
Double Patenting
The applicant requests the right to respond to the double patenting rejections upon indication of an allowable claim (Remarks p. 21 para. 4).
The double patenting rejections are maintained.
New Grounds
In light of claim amendment and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made over Stebbing in view of Ivanov and over Stebbing as evidenced by Gulati.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 43 lines 1-2 recite “a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet will be 70 dB or more”. Claim 43 depends from claim 16, which recites in lines 3-4 “a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 30 dB or more and 110 dB or less”. Therefore, claim 43 requires a sound pressure of 70 dB or more in combination with the upper limit recited in claim 16 of 110 dB or less.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 line 3 “sound pressure level…will be 30 dB…” uses a future tense verb “will be” that describes a future state or potential. However, a present tense verb such as “is” should be used to describe events that are actively happening.
Claim 16 line 4 “to cause hydrogen desorb from the surface” is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 43 line 2 “sound pressure level…will be 70 dB…” uses a future tense verb “will be” that describes a future state or potential. However, a present tense verb such as “is” should be used to describe events that are actively happening.
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 16, 17, 24, 33, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C).
Regarding claim 16, Stebbing discloses a steel sheet production method ([0003], [0015]) comprising
an irradiation (vibration) step of irradiating a steel sheet coil obtained by coiling a steel strip in air, so as to cause hydrogen desorb from the surface of the steel sheet coil (vibration induced hydrogen removal) to obtain a product coil with improved hydrogen embrittlement resistance (hydrogen is problematic because it can lead to embrittlement) ([0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]).
Stebbing is silent to irradiating using a sound wave so that a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 30 dB or more and 110 dB or less.
Ivanov discloses a steel sheet production method ([0020]) comprising irradiating a steel sheet with sound waves so that sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet will be 30 dB or more and 110 dB or less (100 to 145 dB) ([0011], [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the irradiation (vibration) process of Stebbing to use sound waves with a sound pressure at a surface of the steel sheet of 100 to 145 dB to increase reliability of metal products obtained by cold plastic deformation by increasing their ductility and viscosity without reducing strength and hardness, as well as reducing the duration of treatment (Ivanov [0010], [0012], [0021]) by dislocation rearrangement of the structure of the metal material (Ivanov [0018]). The steel sheet (metal product) of Stebbing undergoes cold plastic deformation (cold working) (Stebbing [0020], [0076], [0079]-[0085]).
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).
Regarding claim 17, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, wherein the sound wave irradiation step is performed while holding the steel sheet coil at 300°C or less (coiling, cooling, then vibrating, including vibrating without added heat) (Stebbing [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]) (-20°C to +5°C) (Ivanov [0011], [0014]). 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).
Regarding claim 24, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, comprising: a coating or plating (oiling or oxidizing) step of forming a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet (Stebbing [0019]-[0020], [0051]-[0052]) to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet (oiled or oxidized surface) (Stebbing [0077]); and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated (oiled or oxidized) steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0078]).
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, where vibration is used to cause hydrogen to diffuse out of the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]).
The limitation of the product coil having a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel sheet. The prior art discloses a process (sound wave irradiation, Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093; Ivanov [0011], [0014], [0020]) that reads on that claimed that removes (diffuses) hydrogen out of the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]).
Generally differences in concentration or temperature (or diffusivity of hydrogen) will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or diffusivity of hydrogen) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 43, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, wherein a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 70 dB or more (100 to 145 dB) (Ivanov [0011], [0014]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 26, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 24 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the coating or plating step including: a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) of a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0105]) including the coating or plating step including: a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step ([0019]-[0021], [0044]-[0052], [0105]-[0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov for the coating or plating step to include a hot-dip galvanizing step and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to easily release hydrogen contained in the base steel sheet when heating, which reduces the amount of diffusible hydrogen and improves resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]) by reducing the amount of hydrogen penetrating into the steel plate (Kim [0044]) and alloying to form a BCC structure though which hydrogen easily passes and discharges (Kim [0046]).
Claims 28-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above. The product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel sheet that naturally flows from a steel with a substantially similar composition processed as claimed.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that of claims 29 and 30 ([0054]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use the steel of Kim because it is a base steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]) that when plated has excellent hydrogen-delayed fracture characteristics (Kim [0001]) and it can be used in an automobile (Kim [0005]) and formed by hot pressing (Kim [0017]). 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).
Therefore, Stebbing in view of Ivanov and Kim disclose a substantially similar steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]-[0096]) processed in a substantially similar irradiation process (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Ivanov [0011], [0014], [0020]), such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0054]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use the steel of Kim because it is a base steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]) that when plated has excellent hydrogen-delayed fracture characteristics (Kim [0001]) and it can be used in an automobile (Kim [0005]) and formed by hot pressing (Kim [0017]). 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 29 and 30
Kim Disclosure
Kim Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.04 to 0.5
[0058]-[0059]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
0.01 to 2
[0061]-[0062]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
0.01 to 10
[0064]-[0065]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.05 or less
[0070]-[0071]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.02 or less
[0073]-[0074]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.02 or less
[0076]-[0077]
Al
2.000 or less
0.001 to 1.0
[0067]-[0068]
Fe
Balance
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.4
[0084]-[0085]
Nb
0.200 or less
V
0.500 or less
Zr
0.0050 or less
B
0.0050 or less
0.0001 to 0.01
[0093]-[0094]
W
0.500 or less
0.01 to 4.0
[0079]-[0080]
Cr
1.000 or less
Mo
1.000 or less
Cu
1.000 or less
0.005 to 2.0
[0087]-[0088]
Ni
1.000 or less
Sn
0.200 or less
0.001 to 1.0
[0090]-[0091]
Sb
0.200 or less
In the event it is determined that Stebbing in view of Ivanov does not render obvious claim 33, then the below claim 33 rejection in view of Kim is applied.
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16.
Stebbing discloses vibrating to diffuse hydrogen out of the solid metal ([0093]).
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the product coil diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with 1 diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less (0.2 ppm or less) ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to control the diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil to 0.2 ppm or less to improve resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]). 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).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshitomi (WO 2019/189849 with citations from US 2021/0115529) and Wang (CN 106086638 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that Stebbing in view of Ivanov does not render obvious claim 24, then the below claim 24 rejection in view of Yoshitomi and Wang is applied.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to a coating or plating step including a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated to plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) comprising a coating or plating step on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0045]-[0051], [0118]-[0128]), wherein the coating or plating step includes a hot-dip galvanizing step ([0051]-[0052], [0107], [0139]); and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0054], [0108], [0140]).
Wang discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]), comprising a coating or plating step of hot-dip galvanizing and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0016], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to include a hot-dip galvanizing and alloying step then coiling so that the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil because hot-dip galvanization and alloying improves the corrosion resistance of the steel sheet and the irradiation (vibration) process performed on a coil advantageously dissipates stresses and prevents edge cracking and bulging of the center of the strip when the coil is opened (Stebbing [0017]-[0018]). Further, Yoshitomi discloses after plating a post-treatment of hydrogen diffusivity (Yoshitomi [0141]-[0143]) and, similarly, the irradiation process of Stebbing in view of Otto is a hydrogen diffusivity treatment (Stebbing [0093]).
Claims 28-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshitomi (WO 2019/189849 with citations from US 2021/0115529).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) comprising a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more (1100 MPa or more) ([0020], [0037], [0097], [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more (1100 MPa or more) so that it has sufficient strength, such as for automotive collision-resistance (Yoshitomi [0002]-[0003]). 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).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0023]-[0043], [0060]-[0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use the steel of Yoshitomi because it is a high-strength steel (Yoshitomi [0022]-[0023]) that is suitable for building materials and automotive collision-resistant parts (Yoshitomi [0002]-[0003]). Further, both Stebbing and Yoshitomi are directed to steels that have diffused out hydrogen (Stebbing [0093]; Yoshitomi [0035], [0109]-[0110]). 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 29 and 30
Yoshitomi Disclosure
Yoshitomi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.08 to 0.20
[0061]-[0062]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
Less than 2.0
[0063]-[0064]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
1.5 to 3.5
[0065]-[0066]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.02 or less
[0067]-[0068]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.002 or less
[0069]-[0070]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.006 or less
[0073]-[0074]
Al
2.000 or less
0.10 or less
[0071]-[0072]
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0077]
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.1
[0079], [0082]
Nb
0.200 or less
V
0.500 or less
Zr
0.0050 or less
B
0.0050 or less
0.0003 to 0.005
[0081], [0084]
Ni
1.000 or less
0.01 to 0.5
[0080], [0083]
Cr
1.000 or less
Mo
1.000 or less
Cu
1.000 or less
Sn
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.1
[0086]-[0087]
Sb
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.1
[0086]-[0087]
Ca
0.0050 or less
0.005 or less
[0088]-[0089]
In the event it is determined that Stebbing in view of Ivanov does not render obvious claim 33, then the below claim 33 rejection in view of Yoshitomi is applied.
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]).
Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses vibration removes hydrogen from within the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]) of the coil (Stebbing [0017]-[0018], [0077]-[0078]).
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) for a steel sheet with a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less (less than 0.25 ppm) ([0035], [0109]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to limit the diffusible hydrogen content to be less than 0.25 ppm to prevent bendability degradation (Yoshitomi [0109]). 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).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Azuma (JP 2007-211280 machine translation) and Wang (CN 106086638 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that Stebbing in view of Ivanov does not render obvious claim 24, then the below claim 24 rejection in view of Azuma and Wang is applied.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to a coating or plating step including a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated to plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) comprising a coating or plating step on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0015]-[0016], [0048], [0050]), wherein the coating or plating step includes a hot-dip galvanizing step ([0053]-[0054]); and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0055]).
Wang discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]), comprising a coating or plating step of hot-dip galvanizing and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0016], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to include a hot-dip galvanizing and alloying step then coiling so that the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil because hot-dip galvanization and alloying improves the corrosion resistance of the steel sheet, the irradiation (vibration) process performed on a coil advantageously dissipates stresses and prevents edge cracking and bulging of the center of the strip when the coil is opened (Stebbing [0017]-[0018]), and the coating is inexpensive and makes the steel sheet suitable for automotive structural members, reinforcing members, and suspension members (Azuma [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Azuma (JP 2007-211280 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) comprising a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more ([0001], [0008], [0017], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more so that it has excellent formability, hole expandability, and forming workability (Azuma [0008], [0017], [0020], [0034]) with an inexpensive cost and is suitable for automotive structural members, reinforcing members, and suspensions members (Azuma [0017]). 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).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0010]-[0012], [0021]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use the steel of Azuma because it is a high-strength steel with excellent formability (Azuma [0020]). 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 29 and 30
Azuma Disclosure
Azuma Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.05 to 0.25
[0021]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
1.0 to 2.0
[0021]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
1.1 to 1.9
[0022]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.04 or less
[0024]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.01 or less
[0024]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.01 or less
[0025]
Al
2.000 or less
0.05 or less
[0025]
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0010]
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.3
[0028]
Nb
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.3
[0028]
B
0.0050 or less
0.0001 to 0.1
[0029]
Cr
1.000 or less
0.05 to 1.0
[0026]
Cu
1.000 or less
0.05to 1.0
[0027]
Ni
1.000 or less
0.05 to 1.0
[0027]
Ca
0.0050 or less
0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]
Mg
0.0050 or less
0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]
REM
0.0050 or less
La: 0.0005 to 0.01
Ce: 0.0005 to 0.01
Y: 0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]-[0031]
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Ivanov (RU 2016115467A with citations from machine translation of RU26563C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yamada (JP 2000-219985 machine translation).
Regarding claim 42, Stebbing in view of Ivanov discloses a steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
Stebbing in view of Ivanov is silent to a housing.
Yamada discloses sound wave irradiation, where, prior to the sound wave irradiation step, housing the steel sheet coil in a housing (tank), wherein the steel sheet coil housed in the housing is subjected to the sound wave irradiation step ([0004]-[0007], Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to apply the vibration in a housing (tank) to contain the vibration (ultrasonic) waves, improving efficiency (Yamada [0009], [0020]).
Claims 16, 17, 24, 33, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.).
Regarding claim 16, Stebbing discloses a steel sheet production method ([0003], [0015]) comprising
an irradiation (vibration) step of irradiating a steel sheet coil obtained by coiling a steel strip in air, so as to cause hydrogen desorb from the surface of the steel sheet coil (vibration induced hydrogen removal) to obtain a product coil with improved hydrogen embrittlement resistance (hydrogen is problematic because it can lead to embrittlement) ([0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]).
With respect to a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil being 30 dB or more and 110 dB or less, noise is measured in units of sound pressure levels called decibels, where a whisper is approximately 30 dB, a normal conversation about 60 dB, and a lawn mower around 90-95 dB and the distance affects the intensity of sound (Gulati p. 668 paras. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention for a conversation in the vicinity of the coil and/or for industrial noise occurring from the disclosed metal processing steps (Stebbing [0025], [0050]-[0053], Fig. 1) to impart a sound pressure level within the claimed range. Furthermore, with respect to the claimed sound pressure level, the sound wave irradiator is described as “commonly available” with a maximum sound pressure level set due to its performance (applicant’s specification [0058]). Therefore the sound pressure level is considered to be common.
Generally, differences in concentration (of sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration (of sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil) 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).
Regarding claim 17, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, wherein the sound wave irradiation step is performed while holding the steel sheet coil at 300°C or less (coiling, cooling, then vibrating, including vibrating without added heat) (Stebbing [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]). 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).
Regarding claim 24, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, comprising: a coating or plating (oiling or oxidizing) step of forming a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet (Stebbing [0019]-[0020], [0051]-[0052]) to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet (oiled or oxidized surface) (Stebbing [0077]); and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated (oiled or oxidized) steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0078]).
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above, where vibration is used to cause hydrogen to diffuse out of the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]).
The limitation of the product coil having a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel sheet. The prior art discloses a process (sound wave irradiation, Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]) that reads on that claimed that removes (diffuses) hydrogen out of the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]).
Generally differences in concentration or temperature (or diffusivity of hydrogen) will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or diffusivity of hydrogen) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 43, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
With respect to a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil being 70 dB or more, noise is measured in units of sound pressure levels called decibels, where a whisper is approximately 30 dB, a normal conversation about 60 dB, and a lawn mower around 90-95 dB and the distance affects the intensity of sound (Gulati p. 668 paras. 4-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention for a conversation in the vicinity of the coil and for industrial noise occurring from the disclosed metal processing steps (Stebbing [0025], [0050]-[0053], Fig. 1) to impart a sound pressure level within the claimed range. Furthermore, with respect to the claimed sound pressure level, the sound wave irradiator is described as “commonly available” with a maximum sound pressure level set due to its performance (applicant’s specification [0058]). Therefore the sound pressure level is considered to be common.
Generally, differences in concentration (of sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration (of sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil) 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).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 26, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 24 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the coating or plating step including: a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) of a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0105]) including the coating or plating step including: a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step ([0019]-[0021], [0044]-[0052], [0105]-[0137]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing for the coating or plating step to include a hot-dip galvanizing step and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to easily release hydrogen contained in the base steel sheet when heating, which reduces the amount of diffusible hydrogen and improves resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]) by reducing the amount of hydrogen penetrating into the steel plate (Kim [0044]) and alloying to form a BCC structure though which hydrogen easily passes and discharges (Kim [0046]).
Claims 28-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above. The product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel sheet that naturally flows from a steel with a substantially similar composition processed as claimed.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that of claims 29 and 30 ([0054]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing in view of Ivanov to use the steel of Kim because it is a base steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]) that when plated has excellent hydrogen-delayed fracture characteristics (Kim [0001]) and it can be used in an automobile (Kim [0005]) and formed by hot pressing (Kim [0017]). 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).
Therefore, Stebbing in view of Kim disclose a substantially similar steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]-[0096]) processed in a substantially similar irradiation process (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]), such that the claimed properties naturally flow from the disclosure of the prior art, including the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0054]-[0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to use the steel of Kim because it is a base steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]) that when plated has excellent hydrogen-delayed fracture characteristics (Kim [0001]) and it can be used in an automobile (Kim [0005]) and formed by hot pressing (Kim [0017]). 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 29 and 30
Kim Disclosure
Kim Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.04 to 0.5
[0058]-[0059]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
0.01 to 2
[0061]-[0062]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
0.01 to 10
[0064]-[0065]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.05 or less
[0070]-[0071]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.02 or less
[0073]-[0074]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.02 or less
[0076]-[0077]
Al
2.000 or less
0.001 to 1.0
[0067]-[0068]
Fe
Balance
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.4
[0084]-[0085]
Nb
0.200 or less
V
0.500 or less
Zr
0.0050 or less
B
0.0050 or less
0.0001 to 0.01
[0093]-[0094]
W
0.500 or less
0.01 to 4.0
[0079]-[0080]
Cr
1.000 or less
Mo
1.000 or less
Cu
1.000 or less
0.005 to 2.0
[0087]-[0088]
Ni
1.000 or less
Sn
0.200 or less
0.001 to 1.0
[0090]-[0091]
Sb
0.200 or less
In the event it is determined that Stebbing does not render obvious claim 33, then the below claim 33 rejection in view of Kim is applied.
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16.
Stebbing discloses vibrating to diffuse hydrogen out of the solid metal ([0093]).
Stebbing is silent to the product coil diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with 1 diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less (0.2 ppm or less) ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to control the diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil to 0.2 ppm or less to improve resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]). 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).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshitomi (WO 2019/189849 with citations from US 2021/0115529) and Wang (CN 106086638 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that Stebbing does not render obvious claim 24, then the below claim 24 rejection in view of Yoshitomi and Wang is applied.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to a coating or plating step including a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated to plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) comprising a coating or plating step on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0045]-[0051], [0118]-[0128]), wherein the coating or plating step includes a hot-dip galvanizing step ([0051]-[0052], [0107], [0139]); and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0054], [0108], [0140]).
Wang discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]), comprising a coating or plating step of hot-dip galvanizing and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0016], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to include a hot-dip galvanizing and alloying step then coiling so that the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil because hot-dip galvanization and alloying improves the corrosion resistance of the steel sheet and the irradiation (vibration) process performed on a coil advantageously dissipates stresses and prevents edge cracking and bulging of the center of the strip when the coil is opened (Stebbing [0017]-[0018]). Further, Yoshitomi discloses after plating a post-treatment of hydrogen diffusivity (Yoshitomi [0141]-[0143]) and, similarly, the irradiation process of Stebbing in view of Otto is a hydrogen diffusivity treatment (Stebbing [0093]).
Claims 28-30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yoshitomi (WO 2019/189849 with citations from US 2021/0115529).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) comprising a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more (1100 MPa or more) ([0020], [0037], [0097], [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to use a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more (1100 MPa or more) so that it has sufficient strength, such as for automotive collision-resistance (Yoshitomi [0002]-[0003]). 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).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0023]-[0043], [0060]-[0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to use the steel of Yoshitomi because it is a high-strength steel (Yoshitomi [0022]-[0023]) that is suitable for building materials and automotive collision-resistant parts (Yoshitomi [0002]-[0003]). Further, both Stebbing and Yoshitomi are directed to steels that have diffused out hydrogen (Stebbing [0093]; Yoshitomi [0035], [0109]-[0110]). 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 29 and 30
Yoshitomi Disclosure
Yoshitomi Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.08 to 0.20
[0061]-[0062]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
Less than 2.0
[0063]-[0064]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
1.5 to 3.5
[0065]-[0066]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.02 or less
[0067]-[0068]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.002 or less
[0069]-[0070]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.006 or less
[0073]-[0074]
Al
2.000 or less
0.10 or less
[0071]-[0072]
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0077]
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.1
[0079], [0082]
Nb
0.200 or less
V
0.500 or less
Zr
0.0050 or less
B
0.0050 or less
0.0003 to 0.005
[0081], [0084]
Ni
1.000 or less
0.01 to 0.5
[0080], [0083]
Cr
1.000 or less
Mo
1.000 or less
Cu
1.000 or less
Sn
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.1
[0086]-[0087]
Sb
0.200 or less
0.001 to 0.1
[0086]-[0087]
Ca
0.0050 or less
0.005 or less
[0088]-[0089]
In the event it is determined that Stebbing does not render obvious claim 33, then the below claim 33 rejection in view of Yoshitomi is applied.
Regarding claim 33, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]).
Stebbing discloses vibration removes hydrogen from within the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]) of the coil (Stebbing [0017]-[0018], [0077]-[0078]).
Stebbing is silent to a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less.
Yoshitomi discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]) for a steel sheet with a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less (less than 0.25 ppm) ([0035], [0109]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to limit the diffusible hydrogen content to be less than 0.25 ppm to prevent bendability degradation (Yoshitomi [0109]). 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).
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Azuma (JP 2007-211280 machine translation) and Wang (CN 106086638 machine translation).
In the event it is determined that Stebbing does not render obvious claim 24, then the below claim 24 rejection in view of Azuma and Wang is applied.
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to a coating or plating step including a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated to plated steel sheet coil, wherein the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) comprising a coating or plating step on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0015]-[0016], [0048], [0050]), wherein the coating or plating step includes a hot-dip galvanizing step ([0053]-[0054]); and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to form a coating or plating on a surface of a hot-rolled steel sheet or a cold-rolled steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet ([0055]).
Wang discloses a steel sheet production method ([0002]), comprising a coating or plating step of hot-dip galvanizing and a step of coiling the coated or plated steel sheet to obtain a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0016], [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to include a hot-dip galvanizing and alloying step then coiling so that the coated or plated steel sheet coil is the steel sheet coil because hot-dip galvanization and alloying improves the corrosion resistance of the steel sheet, the irradiation (vibration) process performed on a coil advantageously dissipates stresses and prevents edge cracking and bulging of the center of the strip when the coil is opened (Stebbing [0017]-[0018]), and the coating is inexpensive and makes the steel sheet suitable for automotive structural members, reinforcing members, and suspension members (Azuma [0017]-[0018]).
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Azuma (JP 2007-211280 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the product coil being composed of a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) comprising a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more ([0001], [0008], [0017], [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to use a high strength steel sheet having a tensile strength of 590 MPa or more so that it has excellent formability, hole expandability, and forming workability (Azuma [0008], [0017], [0020], [0034]) with an inexpensive cost and is suitable for automotive structural members, reinforcing members, and suspensions members (Azuma [0017]). 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).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Stebbing discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 as cited above.
Stebbing is silent to the claimed composition of the base steel sheet of the product coil.
Azuma discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that claimed ([0010]-[0012], [0021]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to use the steel of Azuma because it is a high-strength steel with excellent formability (Azuma [0020]). 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 29 and 30
Azuma Disclosure
Azuma Citation
C
0.030 to 0.800
0.05 to 0.25
[0021]
Si
0.01 to 3.00
1.0 to 2.0
[0021]
Mn
0.01 to 10.00
1.1 to 1.9
[0022]
P
0.001 to 0.100
0.04 or less
[0024]
S
0.0001 to 0.0200
0.01 or less
[0024]
N
0.0005 to 0.0100
0.01 or less
[0025]
Al
2.000 or less
0.05 or less
[0025]
Fe
Balance
Balance
[0010]
At least one of:
Ti
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.3
[0028]
Nb
0.200 or less
0.005 to 0.3
[0028]
B
0.0050 or less
0.0001 to 0.1
[0029]
Cr
1.000 or less
0.05 to 1.0
[0026]
Cu
1.000 or less
0.05to 1.0
[0027]
Ni
1.000 or less
0.05 to 1.0
[0027]
Ca
0.0050 or less
0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]
Mg
0.0050 or less
0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]
REM
0.0050 or less
La: 0.0005 to 0.01
Ce: 0.0005 to 0.01
Y: 0.0005 to 0.01
[0030]-[0031]
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as evidenced by Gulati (Gulati. Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices. Third Edition. Industrial Press. (2021) Chapter 13. Current Trends and Practices. 633-700.) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yamada (JP 2000-219985 machine translation).
Regarding claim 42, Stebbing discloses a steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
Stebbing is silent to a housing.
Yamada discloses sound wave irradiation, where, prior to the sound wave irradiation step, housing the steel sheet coil in a housing (tank), wherein the steel sheet coil housed in the housing is subjected to the sound wave irradiation step ([0004]-[0007], Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of Stebbing to apply the vibration in a housing (tank) to contain the vibration (ultrasonic) waves, improving efficiency (Yamada [0009], [0020]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 17, and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,686,896 (US ‘896, formerly US App No 18/004,881) in view of Stebbing (US 2011/0036467).
US ‘896 discloses irradiating a steel material with sound waves so that a sound pressure at a surface of the steel material will be 30 dB or more (claim 1).
US ‘896 is silent to the steel material being a coil.
Stebbing discloses a steel sheet production method ([0003], [0015]) comprising an irradiation (vibration) step of irradiating a steel sheet coil obtained by coiling a steel strip to obtain a product coil ([0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of US ‘896 to apply the sound waves (vibration) to a steel sheet coil to relieve stresses and prevent edge cracking and center bulging when the coil is opened (Stebbing [0017]).
Claims 24, 26, 28-30, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,686,896 (US ‘896, formerly US App No 18/004,881) in view of Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
US ‘896 is silent to the claimed hot-dip galvanizing, steel composition, and hydrogen diffusivity.
Kim discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001], [0013]) with a base steel sheet having a chemical composition that overlaps with that of claims 29 and 30 ([0054]-[0096]) being a coated or plated steel sheet coil ([0105]) including the coating or plating step including: a hot-dip galvanizing step; and an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step ([0019]-[0021], [0044]-[0052], [0105]-[0137]) with a diffusible hydrogen content of 0.50 mass ppm or less (0.2 ppm or less) ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of US ‘896 in view of Stebbing to hot-dip galvanize and alloy a steel with a base metal of Kim and have a final hydrogen diffusivity of 0.2 ppm or less because an alloying step following the hot-dip galvanizing step to easily release hydrogen contained in the base steel sheet when heating, which reduces the amount of diffusible hydrogen and improves resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]) by reducing the amount of hydrogen penetrating into the steel plate (Kim [0044]) and alloying to form a BCC structure though which hydrogen easily passes and discharges (Kim [0046]), where the base steel sheet composition (Kim [0054]) when plated has excellent hydrogen-delayed fracture characteristics (Kim [0001]) and it can be used in an automobile (Kim [0005]) and formed by hot pressing (Kim [0017]) and the diffusible hydrogen content of the product coil of 0.2 ppm or less improves resistance to hydrogen delayed destruction (Kim [0023]). 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).
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,686,896 (US ‘896, formerly US App No 18/004,881) in view of Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yamada (JP 2000-219985 machine translation).
US ‘896 in view of Stebbing discloses a steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
US ‘896 in view of Stebbing is silent to a housing.
Yamada discloses sound wave irradiation, where, prior to the sound wave irradiation step, housing the steel sheet coil in a housing (tank), wherein the steel sheet coil housed in the housing is subjected to the sound wave irradiation step ([0004]-[0007], Figs. 1, 3, 5-7, 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the instant invention in the process of US ‘896 in view of Stebbing to apply the vibration in a housing (tank) to contain the vibration (ultrasonic) waves, improving efficiency (Yamada [0009], [0020]).
Related Art
Blaise (US 2020/0399734)
Blaise discloses manufacturing a steel coil, sheet, or blank ([0016]) with an overlapping composition ([0063]) by precoating a steel coil with an aluminum alloy ([0017]) having a thickness between 10 and 35 um ([0068]-[0069]) then heating in a furnace ([0018]) to produce a prealloy steel coil ([0021]).
Ishikawa (JP 2004-131794 machine translation)
Ishikawa discloses dehydrogenating steel plates to reduce the hydrogen contained in the steel plates (p. 1 para. 1) by ultrasonic vibration using a hammer (p. 2 para. 1) when the steel plate is preferably at a temperature of 200°C or lower (p. 2 para. 2).
Zhang (CN 110055389 machine translation)
Zhang discloses rapidly eliminating hydrogen in old metal by continuous electric pulse processing ([0002], [0009], [0011]-[0013]) of ultrasonic waves ([0016]), where the hydrogen content of the solid metal block is reduced by at least 25% after being treated ([0020]). The method of Zhang shortens processing time, improves efficiency, and utilizes a small area to process solid metals on a large scale ([0021]).
Yakolev (Yakolev and Zumberov. Protection of materials from hydrogen accumulation. ES3 Web of Conferences 121, 20214 (2019).)
Yakolev discloses ultrasonic peening results in a significant reduction of diffusely mobile hydrogen (Sect. 3).
Abe (JP 2006-037130 machine)
Abe discloses a plated steel sheet ([0001]) with an overlapping composition ([0006]-[0011]) manufactured by plating then heating ([0013]) to improve hydrogen embrittlement ([0003]).
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
Prosecution Insights