DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8, 11-19, 21, and 22 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-8, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 14, 15, 18, 19, and 22 are withdrawn from examination. It is noted that new claim 22 is directed to a method of manufacture and is dependent on claim withdrawn claim 14; accordingly, claim 22 will also be considered withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 17 are currently amended. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
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 1-8, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0237874 (A1) to Yamazaki et al. (“Yamazaki”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 16, and 21, Yamazaki discloses a high-strength, hot-rolled steel sheet having tensile strength (TS) of 980 MPa or more and having excellent punching workability and hole expandability (980 MPa-grade, ultra-high-hole-expandability steel). Abstract; para. [0023]. The main phase is bainite in an amount of 85% or more, preferably 95% or more in area ratio (fully bainitic). Para. [0074], [0077].
The steel contains the following elements in percent by mass (para. [0038]-[0065]):
Element
Claim 1
US 2018/0237874 A1
C
0.05 - 0.10
0.04 - 0.18
Si
> 1.0 to ≤ 2.0
0.20 - 2.0
Mn
1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 3.0
P
≤ 0.02
0.03 or less
S
≤ 0.003
0.005 or less
Al
0.02 - 0.08
0.005 - 0.100
N
≤ 0.004
0.010 or less
Mo
0.1 - 0.5
0.05 - 0.30
Ti
0.01 - 0.05
0.02 - 0.15
O
≤ 0.0030
---------------
Cr
≤ 0.5
0.10 - 1.00
B
≤ 0.002
0.0005 - 0.0050
Ca
≤ 0.005
0.0002 - 0.0050
Nb
≤ 0.06
0.005 - 0.050
V
≤ 0.05
0.05 - 0.30
Cu
≤ 0.5
0.01 - 0.30
Ni
≤ 0.5
0.01 - 0.30
Fe & unavoidable
balance
balance
impurities
V (vanadium) is an optional element and therefore may be omitted, i.e., can be zero percent, which falls within the claimed range. Para. [0055]. If V is added, it is present in an amount of 0.05-0.30% by mass (para. [0057]), which overlaps the claimed range.
Yamazaki does not teach the intentional addition of oxygen (O). Therefore, O will be interpreted as being present only in impurity amounts or entirely absent, which falls within the claimed range.
The TS is 980 MPa or more (para. [0035]), which is identical to the claimed range. The hole expansion ratio, λ, is 60% or more (para. [0031], [0104]), which is identical to the claimed range. In Table 3, the yield point and total elongation values of inventive examples fall within the claimed ranges.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Yamazaki is silent regarding how the steel would perform under the claimed bending test. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yamazaki satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as passing a cold bending test, would also be expected to be present in Yamazaki’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 11-13, the TS is 980 MPa or more (para. [0035]), which overlaps the claimed range. The hole expansion ratio, λ, is 60% or more (para. [0031], [0104]), which overlaps the claimed range. In Table 3, the yield point, total elongation, TS, and λ values of inventive examples fall within the claimed ranges.
Further regarding claims 11-13 and regarding claim 17, Yamazaki is silent regarding how the steel would perform under the claimed bending test. Yamazaki is also silent regarding the impact toughness characteristic of the steel. However, as noted above, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yamazaki’s steels satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as passing a cold bending test and impact toughness, would also be expected to be present in Yamazaki’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of US 2007/0089814 (A1) to Sugiura et al. (“Sugiura”).
Regarding claims 1-8, 16, and 21, Yamazaki discloses a high-strength, hot-rolled steel sheet having tensile strength (TS) of 980 MPa or more and having excellent punching workability and hole expandability (980 MPa-grade, ultra-high-hole-expandability steel). Abstract; para. [0023]. The main phase is bainite in an amount of 85% or more, preferably 95% or more in area ratio (fully bainitic). Para. [0074], [0077].
The steel contains the following elements in percent by mass (para. [0038]-[0065]):
Element
Claim 1
US 2018/0237874 A1
C
0.05 - 0.10
0.04 - 0.18
Si
> 1.0 to ≤ 2.0
0.20 - 2.0
Mn
1.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 3.0
P
≤ 0.02
0.03 or less
S
≤ 0.003
0.005 or less
Al
0.02 - 0.08
0.005 - 0.100
N
≤ 0.004
0.010 or less
Mo
0.1 - 0.5
0.05 - 0.30
Ti
0.01 - 0.05
0.02 - 0.15
O
≤ 0.0030
---------------
Cr
≤ 0.5
0.10 - 1.00
B
≤ 0.002
0.0005 - 0.0050
Ca
≤ 0.005
0.0002 - 0.0050
Nb
≤ 0.06
0.005 - 0.050
V
≤ 0.05
0.05 - 0.30
Cu
≤ 0.5
0.01 - 0.30
Ni
≤ 0.5
0.01 - 0.30
Fe & unavoidable
balance
balance
impurities
V (vanadium) is an optional element and therefore may be omitted, i.e., can be zero percent, which falls within the claimed range. Para. [0055]. If V is added, it is present in an amount of 0.05-0.30% by mass (para. [0057]), which overlaps the claimed range.
The TS is 980 MPa or more (para. [0035]), which is identical to the claimed range. The hole expansion ratio, λ, is 60% or more (para. [0031], [0104]), which is identical to the claimed range. In Table 3, the yield point and total elongation values of inventive examples fall within the claimed ranges.
The overlap between the ranges taught in the prior art and recited in the claims creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from among the prior art ranges because there is utility over an entire range disclosed in the prior art.
Yamazaki is silent regarding how the steel would perform under the claimed bending test. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01.
In the present instance, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yamazaki satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as passing a cold bending test, would also be expected to be present in Yamazaki’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties.
Yamazaki is silent regarding the amount of oxygen (O) in the steel.
Sugiura is drawn to high-strength, hot-rolled steel sheets having excellent shape fixability and in which ferrite or bainite is the largest volume percentage. Abstract; para. [0001], [0148]. O is an impurity that should not exceed 0.01% by mass, as O deteriorates formability, hole expansivity, elongated flange formability, fatigue strength, and toughness. Para. [0160], [0161], [0198], [0199].
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have limited the amount of oxygen in Yamazaki to the maximum specified in Sugiura in order to limit the negative effect oxygen would have on formability and hole expansion ratio of the steel.
Regarding claims 11-13, Yamazaki teaches a TS of 980 MPa or more (para. [0035]), which overlaps the claimed range. The hole expansion ratio, λ, is 60% or more (para. [0031], [0104]), which overlaps the claimed range. In Table 3, the yield point, total elongation, TS, and λ values of inventive examples fall within the claimed ranges.
Further regarding claims 11-13 and regarding claim 17, Yamazaki is silent regarding how the steel would perform under the claimed bending test. Yamazaki is also silent regarding the impact toughness characteristic of the steel. However, as noted above, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yamazaki’s steels satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as passing a cold bending test and impact toughness, would also be expected to be present in Yamazaki’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to US 6,364,968 (B1) to Yasuhara et al. have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Yasuhara to reject the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is (571)270-3587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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 D. 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.
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights