DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Claims 4-11 and 13-16 have been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-3 and 12 are presented for examination on the merits. Applicant's amendments to the abstract have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/20/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/20/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109790601 A of Sano (as cited in prior Office action) in view of “Advances in Continuous Casting of Steel” of NPTEL and further in view of the combination of “Conventional and near net shape casting options for steel sheet” of Guthrie, “Steel Continuous Casting” of Pehlke, and “Exploring Steel Plate Heat Treatment Processes” of Leeco Steel.
Regarding claim 1, Sano teaches a steel sheet having excellent formability, that is, excellent uniform elongation, excellent weldability and high strength (Abstract, reads on the claimed steel sheet).
List 1
Element
Instant claim (mass%)
Sano (mass%)
C
0.150-0.400
0.03-0.40
Si
0.01-2.50
0.01-5.00
Mn
1.50-3.50
0.50-12.00
P
≤ 0.05
≤ 0.150
S
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.0300
Al
0.001-1.50
0.001-5.000
Si and Al
0.5-3.00 total
0.011-10 total (calculated)
N
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.0100
O
≤ 0.01
≤ 0.0100
Ti
0-0.20
0~0.500
V
0-1.00
0~0. 500
Nb
0-0.10
0~0.500
Cr
0-2.00
0-5.00
Ni
0-1.00
0~5.00
Cu
0-1.00
0~5.00
Co
0-1.00
-
Mo
0-1.00
0~5.00
W
0-1.00
0-0.500
B
0-0.01
0-0.0030
Sn
0-1.00
0-0.0500
Sb
0-1.00
0-0.0500
Ca
0-0.01
0-0.0500
Mg
0-0.01
0-0.0500
Ce
0-0.01
0-0.0500 (from REM)
Zr
0-0.01
0-0.0500
La
0-0.01
0-0.0500 (from REM)
Hf
0-0.01
-
Bi
0-0.01
-
REM
0-0.01 (other than Ce and La)
0-0.0500
As: 0-0.0500
Te: 0-0.0500
Fe and impurities
Remainder
Remainder
Ferrite
0-50 vol%
0-75 vol%
Residual austenite
6-30 vol%
4-70 vol%
Bainite
5-60 vol%
0-50 vol%
Tempered martensite
5-50 vol%
0-25 vol%
Fresh martensite
0-10 vol%
0-25 vol%
Pearlite
0-5 vol%
0-10 vol%
Sano teaches a steel with a chemical composition ([0024], [0028]-[0029], [0057]-[0101]) and microstructure ([0105]-[0113], microstructure is measured at ¼ thickness of the plate which reads on the claimed at a 1/4 depth position of a sheet thickness from a surface of the steel sheet) overlapping with the claimed steel, as shown in List 1. While Sano does not explicitly disclose a value Si and Al in total, one can perform the calculation which results in values of 0.011-10 mass% total, which overlaps with the claimed ranges as shown in List 1. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
However, Sano does not explicitly disclose at the 1/4 depth position of the sheet thickness from the surface, a number proportion of the residual austenite having an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more to an entire residual austenite is 50% or more, and a number density of inclusions and precipitates having a grain size of 1 m or more is 30 /mm2 or less, and at a 1/20 depth position of the sheet thickness from the surface, an average interval between Mn-concentrated portions in a direction perpendicular to a rolling direction is 300 m or less, and a standard deviation of Mn concentrations in the residual austenite is 0.40% or less of claim 1.
The instant specification recites a number proportion of residual austenite having an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more in the entire residual austenite in the range of the ⅛ thickness to the ⅜ thickness centered on the ¼ thickness position, a number density of inclusions and precipitates having a grain size of 1 μm or more in the range of the ⅛ thickness to the ⅜ thickness centered on the ¼ thickness position from the surface, an average interval between Mn-concentrated portions at a 1/20 depth position of a sheet thickness from the surface, and a standard deviation of Mn concentrations in the residual austenite are obtained from the method including hot rolling, finish rolling, pickling, cold-rolling, first annealing step, second annealing step, soaking step, and hot-dip galvanizing ([0087], [0096]).
Sano teaches the steel sheet is produced by melting and casting the steel to form a slab or an ingot, heating and hot rolling the ingot, pickling the obtained hot-rolled steel sheet, performing a first annealing, performing a second annealing, and performing a cold rolling between the first and second annealing steps ([0132]).
Given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, and processing of Sano and the instant invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Sano to necessarily possess the claimed number proportion of residual austenite, number density of inclusions and precipitates, average interval between Mn-concentrated portions, and standard deviation of Mn concentrations in the residual austenite of the instant invention.
More specifically, a detailed processing analysis for each claimed property is presented below.
Number proportion of the residual austenite having an aspect ratio of 2.0 or more to an entire residual austenite is 50% or more
The instant specification recites the aspect ratio of residual austenite cannot be controlled to 2.0 or more when heating is performed to a temperature of Ac3 or higher ([0066]). The instant specification recites a formula for Ac3 in paragraph [0085]. Using this formula and the composition of the instant invention, the Ac3 temperature of the instant invention ranges from 757-847°C. The instant specification further recites examples where the claimed number proportion is not met when the C content, Si content, Al content, pearlite, retained austenite, and tempered martensite are outside of the claimed range (Examples 45-47, 64, 110-111). Sano teaches in the first annealing, the hot-rolled steel sheet is heated, maintained in a temperature range of 550 to 750°C for more than 30 minutes ([0139]) and if the first annealing temperature exceeds 750°C the amount of martensite increases at the end of the first annealing ([0141]). Sano further teaches a second annealing step with an annealing temperature between 550 and 800°C ([0146]-[0147]). The annealing temperatures of Sano overlap with the annealing temperatures of the instant invention and neither annealing step of Sano exceeds the Ac3 temperature upper limit of 847°C of the instant invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Sano to possess the claimed number proportion of residual austenite given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, and annealing temperatures.
Number density of inclusions and precipitates having a grain size of 1 m or more is 30 /mm2 or less
The instant specification recites when the molten steel casting amount per unit time is less than 2 tons/min, there may be cases where the number density of inclusions and precipitates exceeds 30/mm2 ([0054]). The instant specification further recites when the average cooling rate between liquidus and solidus temperature of the surface layer of the slab is lower than 4°C/s, there may be cases where the number density of inclusions and precipitates exceeds 30/mm2 ([0055]). Sano teaches an average cooling rate of 50°C/sec in the temperature range from 800°C to the coiling start temperature ([0158]), which is overlapping with the cooling rate of the instant invention but at a different step of the processing. Sano teaches the slab can be manufactured by conventional continuous casting process or by thin slab casting ([0133]). Since Sano does not explicitly disclose a molten steel casting amount per unit time nor an average cooling rate between liquidus and solidus temperature, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary casting amounts per unit time in steel casting. NPTEL teaches advances in continuous casting of steel (Title) and teaches that an average casting speed in the conventional slab casters is on average 2 m/min (High Speed Casting section, 1st paragraph). Using a typical cross section of a steel slab of 200 mm x 800 mm (see processing for property (c) below for further slab thickness discussion), one can perform the calculation to obtain the steel flow rate in tons/min by multiplying the casting speed, the cross-sectional area, and the density of steel (steel density is approximately 7 tons/m3). The flow rate calculation is
2
m
min
×
0.2
m
×
0.8
m
×
7
t
o
n
s
m
3
and results in a value of 2.24 tons/min, which is within the molten casting amount of the instant invention. Since the slab widths are not disclosed by either the instant invention nor Sano, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust and vary the casting amounts of the molten steel, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by NPTEL, to form a conventional steel sheet using known and tested molten steel casting amounts predictably suitable to manufacturing the steel slab used to make the steel sheet of Sano. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the molten steel casting amounts of Sano and the instant invention to overlap since the ranges of the instant invention are typical in continuous steel casting.
Regarding the cooling rate, Guthrie teaches conventional and near net shape casting options for steel sheets (Title), which includes continuous casting. Guthrie teaches steel casting can reach cooling rates of 50-100°C/s and up to 1000°C/s, which overlaps with the instant range of 4°C/s or higher. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust and vary the average cooling rate of the molten steel, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Guthrie, to form a conventional steel sheet using known and tested cooling rates predictably suitable to manufacturing the steel slab used to make the steel sheet of Sano.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Sano, as modified by NPTEL and Guthrie, to possess the claimed number density of inclusions and precipitates given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, molten steel casting amount and average cooling rate.
Average interval between Mn-concentrated portions in a direction perpendicular to a rolling direction is 300 μm or less
The instant specification recites the slab thickness is set to 200 mm to 300 mm ([0056]). Sano teaches the slab can be manufactured by conventional continuous casting process or by thin slab casting ([0133]). Since Sano does not explicitly disclose a slab thickness, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary slab thicknesses used in continuous steel casting. Pehlke teaches steel continuous casting (Title) and teaches a conventional caster produces slabs 150 to 350 mm thick, which are used to produce hot rolled strip (page 919, “Near-Net Shape Casting” section). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of Sano, as modified by Pehlke, to possess the claimed average interval between Mn-concentrated portions given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, and slab thicknesses. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP § 2144.05 I.
Standard deviation of Mn concentrations in the residual austenite is 0.40% or less
The instant specification recites when the solidification rate is less than 100°C/min, there may be a case where the standard deviation of the Mn concentrations exceeds 0.40% ([0053]). The instant specification recites when the average heating rate between Ac1 and Ac1+30°C is lower than 2°C/min it becomes difficult to set the standard deviation of the Mn concentration to 0.40% or less ([0057]). The instant specification recites a formula for Ac1 in paragraph [0085]. Using this formula and the composition of the instant invention, the Ac1 to Ac1+30°C temperature range of the instant invention is from 707°C to 805°C. The instant specification further recites by heating to 1200°C or higher and holding in the temperature range for 20 minutes or longer, the standard deviations of the Mn concentrations can reach 0.40% or less ([0058]).
Regarding the solidification rate, Sano teaches the slab can be manufactured by conventional continuous casting process or by thin slab casting ([0133]). Since Sano does not explicitly disclose a solidification rate, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary solidification rates used in continuous steel casting. Since the cooling rates of the instant invention and modified Sano overlap (see discussion for property (b) above), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the solidification rate to also overlap since it is well-known in the art that solidification rate is determined by the cooling rate used in the casting process.
Regarding the heating rate, Sano teaches the average heating rate in the temperature range of 300 to 550°C was set to various values in the range of 0.01 to 30° C/sec ([0158], 0.01-30°C/s is equivalent to 0.6-1800°C/min and the instant invention recites a range of at least 2°C/min), which overlaps with the heating rate of the instant invention but disclosed for a different temperature range. Sano teaches the slab can be manufactured by conventional continuous casting process or by thin slab casting ([0133]). Since Sano teaches average heating rates of 0.01 to 30° C/sec and using a conventional continuous casting process, it would have been obvious to use the heating rate taught by Sano in the other processing steps, to simplify and optimize the processing of the steel sheet of Sano.
Regarding the slab heating, Sano teaches the obtained slab is heated to 1200°C ([0158]), which overlaps with the 1200°C or higher of the instant invention. While Sano does not explicitly disclose a retention time for heating the slab, it is well-known in the art that steel is heated at least one hour per inch of thickness, as taught by Leeco Steel (Normalizing section). In the slab of Sano, a slab thickness of 200 mm, as an example, results in a thickness of 7.9 inches and therefore a retention time of 7.9 hours, which overlaps with the instant invention’s range of 20 minutes or longer.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the steel sheet of modified Sano to possess the claimed standard deviation of Mn concentrations given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, solidification rate, average heating rate, and slab heating temperature and retention time.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (see microstructure analysis above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see general processing analysis and detailed processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel sheet of Sano to possess the claimed number proportion of the residual austenite, number density of inclusions and precipitates, average interval between Mn-concentrated portions, and standard deviation of Mn concentrations given the overlap in chemical composition, microstructure, and processing between the steel sheet of modified Sano and the instant invention, as outlined above.
Modified Sano therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sano teaches the steel sheet of claim 1 as described above.
Sano teaches the steel sheet of the present embodiment may be a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet having a hot-dip galvanized layer provided on the surface thereof, or may be an alloyed hot-dip galvanized steel sheet having an alloyed hot-dip galvanized layer provided on the surface thereof ([0128], one of ordinary skill in the art understand a galvanized layer is a plating layer on the surface of the steel sheet and therefore reads on the claimed further comprising: a plating layer on the surface).
Modified Sano therefore reads on the limitation “further comprising: a plating layer on the surface of the steel sheet” of claim 3.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109790601 A of Sano (as cited in prior Office action) in view of “Advances in Continuous Casting of Steel” of NPTEL, “Conventional and near net shape casting options for steel sheet” of Guthrie, “Steel Continuous Casting” of Pehlke, and “Exploring Steel Plate Heat Treatment Processes” of Leeco Steel, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Influence of Fe oxidation on selective oxidation behavior of Si and Mn added in high strength sheet steel” of Fushiwaki.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sano teaches the steel sheet of claim 1 as described above.
Sano teaches a conventional method to form a slab or an ingot, heating and hot rolling the ingot, pickling the obtained hot-rolled steel sheet, performing a first annealing, and then performing a second annealing ([0130]).
However, Sano does not explicitly disclose wherein a ratio of a Vickers hardness Hvsur at a depth position of 30 μm from the surface to a Vickers hardness (Hv) at the 1/4 depth position of the sheet thickness from the surface satisfies Expression (1) of claim 2.
The instant specification recites the oxygen potential log(PH2O/PH2) in either of the two annealing steps may be adjusted according to required properties and that when the oxygen potential is less than -1.1, the oxygen potential is insufficient and decarburization does not progress, while an oxygen potential higher than -0.07 leads to iron oxidation and a product cannot be obtained therefrom ([0081]). Since Sano does not explicitly disclose the oxygen potential used in its annealing steps, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary annealing atmospheres used for steel sheets.
Fushiwaki teaches galvanized high tensile strength steel sheets containing Si and Mn and its oxidation-reduction process for a cold-rolled steel sheet containing 0.25 mass%Si-1.8mass%Mn (Abstract), which overlaps with the Si and Mn of the instant invention. Fushikawi is considered analogous art since it is in the same field of endeavor of steel sheets for automobiles and is similarly concerned with steel sheets with high strength and reduced oxidation during annealing (1. Introduction).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Equilibrium pH2O/pH2 of various oxides on sample with annealing in H2-H2O mixed gas atmosphere adapted from Fig. 10 of Fushikawi.
Fushikawi teaches that when the steel surface is exposed to an oxidizing atmosphere, it will react primarily by forming an Fe oxide, which can be reduced by hydrogen in a reduction process that follows so that good wettability can be obtained due to the formation of pure iron (Abstract). It is well known in the art that annealing in a reduced atmosphere allows for reduction of oxide formation and that equilibrium reactions, such as those provided by Fushikawi in Fig. 10 (shown above in Figure 1) using the reactions (1)-(4) of Section 4.1, provide a baseline for selecting appropriate annealing atmospheres. Fushikawi teaches that oxidation of iron occurs above a log(PH2O/PH2) value of approximately -0.5 (Fig. 10 shown above in Figure 1 where line (4) depicts the reaction for iron oxide formation) and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the annealing atmosphere below -0.5 to minimize the formation of iron oxides. While Fushikawi teaches a different method to reduce Fe, Si, and Mn oxidation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to refer to the calculated equilibrium diagram for a steel with overlapping composition to select an appropriate annealing atmosphere, such as to an oxygen potential below a log(PH2O/PH2) value of -0.5, to reduce the formation of iron oxides and consequently improve wettability, as taught by Fushikawi, which results in improved coating adhesion.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01 I. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2112.01 II. Therefore, it is expected that the steel of the prior art possesses the properties as claimed in the instant claims since a) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in composition (see compositional analysis above), b) the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure (see microstructure analysis above), and c) the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes (see processing analysis above). Since the Office does not have a laboratory to test the reference alloy, it is applicant’s burden to show that the reference alloy does not possess the properties as claimed in the instant claims. See In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the steel of Sano, as modified with the annealing atmosphere of Fushikawi, to possess the claimed hardness values given the overlapping chemical composition, microstructure, and processing steps between the steel of modified Sano and the instant invention.
Modified Sano therefore reads on the limitation wherein a ratio of a Vickers hardness Hvsur at a depth position of 30 μm from the surface to a Vickers hardness (Hv) at the 1/4 depth position of the sheet thickness from the surface satisfies Expression (1) of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, modified Sano teaches the steel sheet of claim 2.
Sano teaches the steel sheet of the present embodiment may be a hot-dip galvanized steel sheet having a hot-dip galvanized layer provided on the surface thereof, or may be an alloyed hot-dip galvanized steel sheet having an alloyed hot-dip galvanized layer provided on the surface thereof ([0128], one of ordinary skill in the art understand a galvanized layer is a plating layer on the surface of the steel sheet and therefore reads on the claimed further comprising: a plating layer on the surface).
Sano therefore reads on the limitation “further comprising: a plating layer on the surface of the steel sheet” of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in the manufacturing method of the claimed invention, the lath-like structure, inclusions and precipitates, and the concentration of Mn are all controlled until completion of final annealing and, after the final annealing, soaking is performed so as to control the microstructure to be within the scope recited in instant claim 1 (remarks, page 13). Applicant argues that the manufacturing method of Sano does not include steps, such as those used in the claimed invention, to similarly control these parameters (remarks, page 13).
In response, Applicant is reminded that the claims are drawn to a product and that differences in processing must be linked to a resulting product to identify why the product of the claimed invention and the prior art would be patentably distinct. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (emphasis added). See MPEP 2112.01 (I). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01 (II). In this case, the steel of Sano has a chemical composition and microstructure overlapping with the claimed invention, as described in this Office action and summarized in List 1 herein. Therefore, the steel of Sano is considered "identical or substantially identical in structure or composition" to the claimed invention and a prima facie case of obviousness has been properly established herein. As the Patent Office does not possess the laboratory facilities to test any differences in the claimed invention versus that of the reference, the burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate otherwise.
Applicant argues that regarding the first annealing, Sano discloses that "if the first annealing temperature exceeds 750°C, martensite increases at the time the first annealing ends, so that (Expression 1) is not satisfied" while in the claimed invention as described above, a lath-like structure is formed positively, and the claimed invention maintains the lath-like structure during the manufacturing processes (remarks, page 14).
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., lath-like structure) 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). In this case, Sano teaches a microstructure overlapping with the claimed invention, as shown in List 1 in this Office action.
Applicant argues that the Examiner relies on six references to allegedly render the invention obvious and as such, an unrecognized property that may be inherent to a single reference cannot be properly applied to a combination of references (remarks, pages 14-15).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this case, Sano teaches the slab can be manufactured by conventional continuous casting process or by thin slab casting ([0133], emphasis added). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably look to the art to find the relevant processing parameters encompassed by the conventional continuous casting process of Sano, including, but not limited to, the slab thickness, molten steel casting amount, average cooling rates, etc. as outlined in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in this Office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights