DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending, and claims 1-6, 8-9, 16-17, and 21 are currently under review.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 10-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 21 is newly added.
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 Amendment
The amendment filed 11/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-20, and newly submitted claim(s) 21, remain(s) pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/20/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The term “ultra-high yield ratio” recited in claim 1 is interpreted to merely require a yield ratio of at least 0.9 as further recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 16-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2016/0076124).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki et al. discloses a steel having a bainitic microstructure and tensile strength of 980 MPa or higher (ie. bainitic), wherein said steel has a composition as seen in table 1 below [abstract, 0145-0164]. Yamazaki et al. further teaches that the steel have a microstructure including at least 95% of lathe bainite, which one of ordinary skill would understand to be acicular bainite that forms at lower temperatures (ie. lower bainite) [abstract]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the steel composition and microstructure of Yamazaki et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Yamazaki et al. teaches a tensile strength of at least 980 MPa as stated above, in addition to a hole expansion of 60% or more, which overlaps with the claimed ranges [abstract, 0214]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach a broad range of yield strengths or a yield ratio as claimed. However, Yamazaki et al. suggests a range of yield strengths of up to approximately 1082 MPa as encompassed by specific examples, wherein the examiner submits that a range of exemplary yield strength values disclosed by Yamazaki et al. would reasonably suggest an encompassing yield strength range to one of ordinary skill [table7]. Alternatively, Yamazaki et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and microstructure as stated above, wherein one of ordinary skill would understand that yield strength and yield ratio are mechanical properties which are directly influenced by steel composition and microstructure and so the disclosure of Yamazaki et al. would naturally achieve a substantially similar, overlapping yield strength range and yield ratio range in view of the overlapping steel composition and microstructure of Yamazaki et al. absent concrete evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Table 1.
Element (wt.%)
Claim 1 (wt.%)
Yamazaki et al. (wt.%)
C
0.12 – 0.24
0.1 – 0.2
Si
0.2 – 0.5
0 – 1
Mn
1.3 – 2
1.5 – 2.5
B
0.001 – 0.004
0.0002 – 0.002
Al
0.01 – 0.05
0 – 0.1
At least one of
Cr
Nb
Ti
Mo
0 – 0.4
0 – 0.06
0 – 0.1
0 – 0.4
0.005 – 0.3
0.005 – 0.1
0.07 – 0.2
0.005 – 0.3
Fe & Impurities
Present
Balance
Regarding claims 2-5 and 16, Yamazaki et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the aforementioned composition of Yamazaki et al. further overlaps with the claimed ranges. Yamazaki et al. further teaches controlling P to be 0.05 weight percent or less, S to be 0.005 weight percent or less, and inclusion of Cu in an amount of 0.005 to 0.3 weight percent for example, which also overlaps with the claimed ranges [0151-0154, 0163]. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Yamazaki et al. discloses the steel of claim 5 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach any of the relations as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the claim relations merely further limit the composition of Yamazaki et al., which still overlaps with the claimed ranges and is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. further teaches that the microstructure further includes cementite (ie. carbide precipitates) dispersed in the bainitic microstructure having a size on the nanometer scale [abstract, 0178-0182]. The examiner notes that the overlap between the microstructure of Yamazaki et al. and that as claimed is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. does not expressly teach yield strengths or yield ratios as claimed. However, since Yamazaki et al. discloses an overlapping steel composition and overlapping steel microstructure as explained above, the disclosure of Yamazaki et al. would naturally achieve a substantially similar, overlapping yield strength range and yield ratio range in view of the overlapping steel composition and microstructure of Yamazaki et al. See MPEP 2112 & MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 21, Yamazaki et al. discloses the steel of claim 1 (see previous). Yamazaki et al. further teaches that the cementite (ie. carbide precipitates) have a maximum size of 150 nanometers or less, which falls within the claimed range [0182].
Response to Arguments
The previous 103 rejections over Becker et al. have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 regarding the rejections over Yamazaki et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the lathe bainite of Yamazaki et al. is different from acicular lower bainite as claimed. The examiner cannot concur. As stated above, one of ordinary skill would understand that “lathe” and “acicular” both refer to elongated shapes of bainite and therefore the lathe bainite of Yamazaki et al. meets the instant claims according to broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant then argues that the lathe bainite of Yamazaki et al. is different from the instant claims because the processing steps of Yamazaki et al. are different from the instant application. The examiner cannot concur. It is noted that the instant claims are directed to a product, not a process, wherein the particular method of manufacturing is irrelevant. See MPEP 2113. If applicant is of the position that the claimed structure can only be formed exclusively by the processing of the instant application, the examiner cannot concur absent concrete evidence to the contrary which has not been provided.
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 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 NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734