DETAILED ACTION
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 October 21, 2025.
Claims Filing Date
October 21, 2025
New
39-42
Amended
16
Cancelled
31-32
Pending
1-30, 33-42
Withdrawn
1-15, 18-23, 25, 27, 34-38
Under Examination
16-17, 24, 26, 28-30, 33, 39-42
Withdrawn Abstract Objection
The following objection is withdrawn due to abstract amendment:
Line 7 “comprises” being legal phraseology.
Response to Remarks filed October 21, 2025
Applicant's arguments filed October 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Stebbing in view of Otto
The applicant argues Stebbing vibrates to relieve internal stress and mentions hydrogen embrittlement as a different issue (Remarks para. spanning pp. 20-21), where Stebbing applies vibration to liquid state metal to remove gases such as hydrogen, but it does not dehydrogenate steel sheet coils (Remarks para. spanning pp. 20-21), whereas irradiating the steel sheet coil with a sound pressure of 30 dB or more advantageously improves resistance to hydrogen embrittlement and Stebbing and Otto do not have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving this advantageous effect (Remarks p. 22 para. 2).
In Stebbing [0093] “Elevated temperatures can sometimes be used to cause the hydrogen within the solid metal to diffuse out of the metal. Vibration can be used to remove it, as well”. Vibration diffuses hydrogen out of metal.
Stebbing [0093] is directed to causing “the hydrogen within the solid metal to diffuse out of the metal.” (Emphasis added). Further, in Stebbing [0093] “Vibration…with or without added heat or while cooling. As is the case with stress removal, vibration induced hydrogen removal can take place at many locations during the manufacture of metal”. Vibration is applied to diffuse hydrogen out of solid metal (i.e. without added heat or while cooling at one of many locations during the manufacture of metal).
In light of the disclosure of Stebbing in view of Otto, irradiating with a sound pressure of 120-140 dB (vibrating) (Otto [0007], [0010]-[0014]) diffuses hydrogen out of metal (Stebbing [0093]), which, absent evidence to the contrary, advantageously improves resistance to hydrogen embrittlement.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., diffusion of hydrogen and improved resistance to hydrogen embrittlement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant argues Otto increases elastic properties of steel coil springs by applying a sound pressure (Remarks para. spanning pp. 20-21), where the steel coil spring (Remarks p. 21 para. 2) has a different shape than a wound steel strip (Remarks p. 21 para. 3) and would not be combined with Stebbing (Remarks p. 22 para. 1) and Otto enhances elastic properties of a spring, which is necessarily irradiated below its elastic (deformation) limit (claim 1), whereas Stebbing is directed to a steel coil, such that the elastic limit is not an issue (Remarks p. 22 para. 3).
Stebbing applies vibration to a coil of steel made from a wire or strip ([0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0054]). Therefore, a steel coiled strip is an art recognized equivalent to a steel coiled wire (MPEP 2144.06(II)) with respect to applying vibration in the coiled state. This supports the combination of the coiled steel strip of Stebbing using the applied sound wave pressure in dB disclosed by Otto.
Further, in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent top the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
Otto is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of irradiating steel with a sound pressure of 120-140 dB ([0007], [0010]-[0014]), where applicant’s Table 1 Nos. 1, 14, and 17-21 have a sound wave irradiation maximum sound pressure level of 120 dB or 130 dB.
Therefore, for the above cited reasons, the rejection of Stebbing in view of Otto is maintained.
Double Patenting
The applicant argues responding to the double patenting rejections upon indication of an allowable claim (Remarks p. 24 para. 2).
The double patenting rejections will be maintained until they have been properly overcome.
New Claims 39-42
The applicant argues support for new claim 41 at Table 3 No. 23, which does not overlap with Otto’s sounds pressure of 120-140 dB (Remarks p. 24 para. 5).
New claim 41 is not rejected over Otto. It is rejected over Wang ‘222’s disclosure of up to 60 dB ([0004]). This overlaps with the 30 dB or more and 110 dB or less range of new claim 41 such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues support for new claim 42 at claim 1 and Figs. 2(A) and (B) in which the steel coil is placed in the container and irradiated without waves to prevent the sound waves from escaping, whereas Stebbing applies vibration directly with no need to prevent sound waves from escaping and Otto has no mention of the spring being in a housing (Remarks para. spanning pp. 24-25).
New claim 42 is rejected over Yamada’s disclosure of applying vibration (ultrasonics) in a tank to advantageously contain the vibration (ultrasonic) waves, improving efficiency (Yamada [0009], [0020]).
New Grounds
New claims 39-42 are rejected over Yamada in view of Wang ’222 and Stebbing.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 39-41 lines 1-2 recite “a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet will be” less than a specified value. Claims 39-41 depend from claim 16, which recites in line 3 “a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 30 dB or more”. Therefore, claims 39-41 require a sound pressure of 30 dB or more in combination with the upper limit respectively recited in each claim.
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, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C).
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 to obtain a product coil (([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.
Otto discloses a steel sheet production method ([0001]) comprising irradiating a steel sheet with sound waves so that a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet will be 30 dB or more (120-140 dB) ([0007], [0010]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the irradiation (vibration) process of Stebbing to use sound waves with a sound pressure at a surface of the steel sheet of 30 dB or more (120-140 dB) in order to remove tensile residual stresses on the surface of the metal product (Otto [0007], [0013]) and increase the elastic properties of the steel, expanding the range of processes products (Otto [0009], [0011], [0017]) through dislocation mobility (Otto [0016]).
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 Otto discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]), wherein the sound wave irradiation step is performed while holding the steel sheet coil at 300 0C or less (coiling, cooling, then vibrating, including vibrating without added heat) (Stebbing [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]) (at room temperature) (Otto [0007], [0010], [0012]). 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 Otto discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]), 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 Otto discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]), 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; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]) 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 39, Stebbing in view of Otto discloses a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 120 dB or less (120-140 dB) (Otto [0007], [0010]-[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 40, Stebbing in view of Otto discloses a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be less than 120 dB (120-140 dB) (Otto [0007], [0010]-[0014]). A prima face case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stebbing (US 2011/0036467) in view of Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 26, Stebbing in view of Otto discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 24 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]).
Stebbing in view of Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 2019-0078013 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing in view of Otto discloses the steel sheet production method according to claim 16 (Stebbing [0003], [0015], [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0077]-[0078], [0093]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]). 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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]; Otto [0007], [0009]-[0017]), 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 vibrating to diffuse hydrogen out of the solid metal ([0093]).
Stebbing in view of Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto discloses vibration removes hydrogen from within the solid metal (Stebbing [0093]) of the coil (Stebbing [0017]-[0018], [0077]-[0078]).
Stebbing in view of Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Azuma (JP 2007-211280 machine translation).
Regarding claim 28, Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto 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 Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto 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 Otto (RU 2014113836A with citations from machine translation of RU2578859C) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yamada (JP 2000-219985 machine translation).
Regarding claim 42, Stebbing in view of Otto discloses a steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
Stebbing in view of Otto 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 in the process of Stebbing in view of Otto to apply the vibration in a housing (tank) to contain the vibration (ultrasonic) waves, improving efficiency (Yamada [0009], [0020]).
Claims 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2000-219985 machine translation) in view of Wang ‘222 (CN 108296222 machine translation) and Stebbing (US 2011/0036467).
Claims 39-42 depend upon claim 16. As evidenced below, Yamada in view of Wang ‘222 and Stebbing satisfy the requirements of claim 16.
With respect to claim 16, Yamada discloses a (stainless) steel production method comprising a sound (ultrasonic) wave irradiation step of irradiating a steel coil obtained by coiling a steel with sound waves, to obtain a product coil ([0004]-[0006], [0010]-[0015], [0023]).
Yamada discloses ultrasonic washing (cleaning) ([0006])
Yamada is silent to a sound pressure level at a surface of 30 dB or more.
Wang ‘222 discloses ultrasonic cleaning includes vibration that have a sound pressure level at a surface of 30 dB or more (up to 60 decibels) ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Yamada for the ultrasonic (sound) waves to have a sound pressure level up to 60 decibels because this is the level that results from vibration of ultrasonic cleaning (Wang ‘222 [0004]).
Yamada discloses a stainless steel wire coil ([0005]).
Yamada is silent to the steel being a sheet coil obtain by coiling a steel strip.
Stebbing discloses a steel sheet production method of irradiating (vibrating) a steel sheet coil obtained by coiling a steel strip ([0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the process of Yamada to replace the steel wire coil with a coiled steel strip because it is an art recognized equivalent steel product (Stebbing [0007]) that both undergo stress relief upon vibration (Stebbing [0017]-[0018]) because the coils as a result of coiling have stress concentrations on the loops (Stebbing [0021]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents (wire coil and strip coil) known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06(II). This equivalency is recognized in the prior art (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
Regarding claim 39, Yamada in view of Wang ’222 discloses a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 120 dB or less (up to 60 decibels) (Wang ‘222 [0004]). 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 40, Yamada in view of Wang ‘222 discloses a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be less than 120 dB (up to 60 decibels) (Wang ‘222 [0004]). 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 41, Yamada in view of Wang ’222 discloses a sound pressure level at a surface of the steel sheet coil will be 110 dB or less (up to 60 decibels) (Wang ‘222 [0004]). 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 42, Yamada discloses 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).
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 39-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/004,881 (App ‘881) in view of Stebbing (US 2011/0036467).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
App ‘881 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).
App ‘881 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 in the process of App ‘881 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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/004,881 (App ‘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).
App ‘881 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 in the process of App ‘881 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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/004,881 (App ‘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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
App ‘881 in view of Stebbing discloses a steel sheet coil (Stebbing [0007], [0017]-[0018], [0021]).
App ‘881 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 in the process of App ‘881 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735