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 .
Response to Arguments
The Obvious-type Double Patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 7/7/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Wada et al. (US 2023/0349020) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 6-10 over Komine et al. (US 2023/0220510) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 over Takafumi et al. (US 2022/0090248) and claims 1 and 3-5 over Komine et al. (US 2023/0220510) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. With respect to the claimed product, Applicant argues that satisfying relational expression 1 is critical for achieving the claimed ductility. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant presents no evidence of criticality with respect to relational expression 1 and ductility, and the data in the specification is insufficient to demonstrate criticality. Objective evidence of nonobvious is required to demonstrate criticality or unexpected results. See MPEP 716.01(a). The rejections of claim 1 over Takafumi and Komine are maintained.
Upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018/117724).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/7/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,590,349 or Application No. 18/266,765 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takafumi et al. (US 2022/0090248).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 5, Takafumi discloses a hot dip galvanized steel sheet (¶ 1) having the following composition as compared to the claimed composition, wt%:
Claim 1
Takafumi, ¶¶ 28-57
C
0.1%-0.2%
0.050%-0.350%
Si
0.1%-1.0%
0.10%-2.50%
Mn
2.0%-3.0%
1.00%-3.50%
Al
0%-1.0% (excl. 0%)
0.001%-1.500%
Cr
0%-1.0%
0%-2.00%
Mo
0%-0.5%
0%-1.00%
Ti
0%-0.1%
0%-0.200%
Nb
0%-0.1%
0%-0.100%
Sb
0%-0.1% (excl. 0
0%-1.00%
P
0%-0.05%
0%-0.050%
S
0%-0.02%
0%-0.0100%
N
0%-0.02%
0%-0.0100%
Fe
Balance
Balance
Relational Expression 1:
-1362 to 2647
Relational Expression 2:
75 to 3660
Relational Expression 3:
-59 to 17
These ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Regarding the relational expressions, Takafumi recognizes C, Si, Mn, Al, Nb, Ti, Cr, and Mo as result-effective variables (see ¶¶ 126-136). Discovering the optimal amounts of these elements and determining the relationships between the optimal amounts of these elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Takafumi discloses the steel sheet has the following microstructure, as compared to the claimed microstructure:
Claim 1
Takafumi, ¶¶ 59-63
Ferrite
3%-20%
0%-50%
r-Austenite
1%-10%
0%-30%
Bainite
1%-30%
Balance (5%-100%)
t-Martensite
30%-70%
≥5%
f-Martensite
Balance (0%-65%)
0%-10%
f-Martensite (Claim 3)
≥3%
These ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, Takafumi discloses a tensile strength of over 980 MPa (see Table 3) and an elongation of 8%-25% (see Table 3). Although Takafumi does not expressly disclose a yield strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the yield strength of the steel of Takafumi to overlap the claimed ranges given the similar in composition, microstructure, and process of manufacture (see discussion of claims 1 and 6 above). Accordingly, the prior art ranges overlap or are expected to overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (US 2023/0220510).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 5, Komine discloses a steel sheet (¶ 1), which is hot-dip galvanized (¶ 36) having the following composition as compared to the claimed composition, wt%:
Claim 1
Komine, ¶¶ 16-36
C
0.1%-0.2%
0.07%-0.20%
Si
0.1%-1.0%
0.1%-2.0%
Mn
2.0%-3.0%
2.0%-3.5%
Al
0%-1.0% (excl. 0%)
0.005%-0.1%
Cr
0%-1.0%
0%-1.00%
Mo
0%-0.5%
0%-0.5%
Ti
0%-0.1%
0%-0.5%
Nb
0%-0.1%
0%-0.5%
Sb
0%-0.1% (excl. 0
0%-1.00%
P
0%-0.05%
0%-0.050%
S
0%-0.02%
0%-0.050%
N
0%-0.02%
0%-0.010%
Fe
Balance
Balance
Relational Expression 1:
-672 to 2902
Relational Expression 2:
421 to 4610
Relational Expression 3:
-108 to 17
These ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Komine recognizes C, Si, Mn, Al, Nb, Ti, Cr, and Mo as result-effective variables (see Komine ¶¶ 103-125). Discovering the optimal amounts of these elements and determining the relationships between the optimal amounts of these elements would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Komine discloses the steel sheet has the following microstructure, as compared to the claimed microstructure:
Claim 1
Komine, ¶¶ 58-67
Ferrite
3%-20%
Pref. 10%-30%
r-Austenite
1%-10%
3%-15%, Pref. 3%-10%
Bainite
1%-30%
Pref. 3%-20%
t-Martensite
30%-70%
40%-93% (together with bainite)
f-Martensite
Balance (0%-65%)
≥7% (together with cementite and pearlite)
f-Martensite (Claim 3)
≥3%
These ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 4, Komine discloses a tensile strength of over 980 MPa (¶ 9). Although Komine does not expressly disclose a yield strength or elongation, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the yield strength and elongation of the steel of Komine to overlap the claimed ranges given the similar in composition, microstructure, and process of manufacture (see discussion of claim 1 above and claim 6 below). Accordingly, the prior art ranges overlap or are expected to overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (US 2023/0220510), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2018/117724).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Komine discloses the following process steps for making the steel sheet of claim 1:
Claim 6
Komine
Obtaining slab with claimed composition
Obtaining slab with disclosed composition (¶ 128)
Heating slab to 1050°C-1300°C
Heating slab to 1100°C -1300°C (¶ 160)
Hot rolling slab at 800°C-1000°C
Hot rolling at 850°C-950°C (¶ 130)
Coiling at 400°C-700°C
Coiling at 400-600°C (¶ 132)
Cold rolling coiled sheet at 20%-70% ratio
Cold rolling coiled sheet at ≥20% (¶ 135)
Annealing at 800°C-900°C
Annealing at 750°C -890°C (¶ 138)
Cooling to 250°C-320°C
Cooling to Ms temperature, followed by cooling to finish cooling temperature of Ms-250°C to Ms-50°C (¶ 147) (Ms is about 320°C-400°C according to Table 2)
Maintaining at cooled temperature for 0.1 to 60 minutes
Not disclosed
Reheating and maintaining at temperature within cooled temperature+50°C to cooled temperature+200°C for 0.1-60min
Tempering at 300°C-500°C for 20s-500s (¶ 151)
With the exception of maintaining at a cooled temperature for 0.1 to 60 minutes, the parameters for the manufacturing steps of making the steel sheet of Komine overlap the parameters for the claimed manufacturing steps, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Komine does not expressly teach maintaining the steel at the cooled temperature for 0.1 to 60 minutes. Kim teaches a steel sheet having a similar composition which is maintained at its cooling stop temperature for 50-150 seconds after annealing and before a reheating step (p. 10, ¶¶ 5-7). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to introduce a step of maintaining at the cooling stop temperature after annealing, as taught by Kim, in the process of Komine because Kim teaches this step balances austenite into bainite transformation (p. 10, ¶ 6), and Komine seeks balancing the amount of these phases in the steel microstructure (¶¶ 58-67).
Regarding claim 7, Komine discloses the cooling rate after annealing is 2-200°C/s (¶¶ 140-145). This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 9, Komine discloses the hot dip galvanizing step takes place after the tempering (¶ 156).
Regarding claim 10, Komine discloses an alloying treatment is performed after the galvanizing step (¶ 157).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights