DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 1-8, 11-13, 16, and 17 are presented for examination on the merits, and claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are currently amended. Claim 19 is withdrawn-currently amended.
Status of Previous Objection to the Specification
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the specification filed on 11/04/2025.
Status of Previous Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot in view of the canceled status of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is indefinite because it depends on canceled claim 10. Thus, the scope of the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes, claim 17 will be interpreted as dependent on claim 1. However, appropriate correction is still required.
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, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,364,968 (B1) to Yasuhara et al. (“Yasuhara”).
Regarding claims 1-8 and 16, Yasuhara teaches a steel sheet having excellent stretch flangeability with a tensile strength of not less than about 780 MPa. Col. 1, lines 9-15. Tensile strengths can range from 790 MPa to 1200 MPa (980 MPa-grade), which overlaps the claimed range. Col. 9, lines 13-18; Tables 3 and 5.
The steel also has excellent stretch flangeability performance (hole expanding ratio, ultra-high hole expandability). Col. 1, lines 9-15; col. 9, lines 13-18; Tables 3 and 5; FIG. 1.
The bainite is not less than about 90% by area (fully bainitic). Col. 8, lines 24-27.
The steel contains the following elements in percent by weight (col. 4, lines 28-52; col. 5, lines 62-67; col. 6, lines 1-67; col. 7, lines 1-67; col. 8, lines 1-23):
Element
Claim 1
US 6,364,968 B1
C
0.05 - 0.10
0.05 - 0.30
Si
≤ 2.0
0.03 - 1.0
Mn
1.0 - 2.0
1.5 - 3.5
P
≤ 0.02
not more than 0.02
S
≤ 0.003
not more than 0.005
Al
0.02 - 0.08
not more than 0.150
N
≤ 0.004
not more than 0.0200
Mo
0.1 - 0.5
0.02 - 1.0
Ti
0.01 - 0.05
0.005 - 0.20
O
≤ 0.0030
---------------
Cr
≤ 0.5
0.02 - 1.0
B
≤ 0.002
0.0005 - 0.0040
Ca
≤ 0.005
0.0005 - 0.0050
Nb
≤ 0.06
0.003 - 0.20
V
≤ 0.05
---------------
Cu
≤ 0.5
0.02 - 1.0
Ni
≤ 0.5
0.02 - 1.0
Fe & unavoidable
balance
balance
impurities
Yasuhara does not teach adding vanadium (V). Therefore, V will be interpreted as being present only in impurity amounts or entirely absent, which falls within the claimed range.
Yasuhara does not teach adding oxygen (O). Yasuhara teaches deoxidizing the steel. Col. 7, lines 8-13. Yasuhara also cites prior art where stretch flangeability is improved by controlling amounts of S, N, and O to no more than 100 ppm. Col. 2, lines 11-20. Therefore, O will be interpreted as being present only in impurity amounts or entirely absent, which falls within the claimed range, with O not intending to be intentionally added to the steel.
Yasuhara teaches examples where the yield stress values (yield strength) meet or exceed 800 MPa (Table 3 – Nos. 1-5 and 7; Table 5 – Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 13), which fall within the claimed range. Tensile strengths range from 790 MPa to 1200 MPa, which overlaps the claimed range. Col. 9, lines 13-18; Tables 3 and 5 – various inventive examples. Some inventive examples have elongation values that meet or exceed 10% (Table 3 – Nos. 2-5 and 7; Table 5 – Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 13), which fall within the claimed range. All inventive examples possess hole expanding ratio values that meet or exceed 60%, which fall within the claimed range. Tables 3 and 5.
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.
Yasuhara teaches that the steel was subjected to a bending test. Col. 14, lines 11-14. The results of the bending test are satisfactory. Col. 14, lines 41-43; col. 15, lines 6-8; Tables 3 and 5.
Yasuhara is silent as to the particular parameters of the bending test; therefore, it is unclear whether the steels of Yasuhara would pass the claimed cold 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 Yasuhara satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as passing a cold bending test, would also be expected to be present in Yasuhara’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties.
Regarding claims 11-13, Yasuhara teaches examples where the yield stress values (yield strength) meet or exceed 800 MPa (Table 3 – Nos. 1-5 and 7; Table 5 – Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 13), which fall within the claimed range. An example yield stress can be 920 MPa (Table 5 – No. 6), which falls within the claimed range. Tensile strengths range from 790 MPa to 1200 MPa, which overlaps the claimed range. Col. 9, lines 13-18; Tables 3 and 5 – various inventive examples. Some inventive examples have elongation values that meet or exceed 10% (Table 3 – Nos. 2-5 and 7; Table 5 – Nos. 3, 6, 7, and 13), which fall within the claimed range. All inventive examples possess hole expanding ratio values that meet or exceed 65% or 70%, which fall within the claimed range. Tables 3 and 5.
Yasuhara teaches that the steel was subjected to a bending test. Col. 14, lines 11-14. The results of the bending test are satisfactory. Col. 14, lines 41-43; col. 15, lines 6-8; Tables 3 and 5. Yasuhara is silent as to the particular parameters of the bending test; therefore, it is unclear whether the steels of Yasuhara would pass the claimed cold bending test. Furthermore, Yasuhara teaches that the steel is to be used in impact beams of motor vehicles (col. 1, lines 5-15; col. 16, lines 15-18), but is silent regarding its impact toughness. However, as noted above, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yasuhara 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 Yasuhara’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, Yasuhara teaches that the steel is to be used in impact beams of motor vehicles (col. 1, lines 5-15; col. 16, lines 15-18), but is silent regarding its impact toughness. However, as noted above, the chemical composition, microstructure, and mechanical properties (tensile strength, yield strength, elongation, and hole expansion ratio) of Yasuhara satisfy the claimed ranges. Therefore, any claimed properties, such as impact toughness, would also be expected to be present in Yasuhara’s steels given its like composition, structure, and other mechanical properties. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the method of manufacture of the present invention is necessary to obtain the claimed ultra-high-hole expandability steel having the retained microstructure and properties. Applicant emphasizes the cooling rate as a necessary parameter for attaining the claimed steel.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because it assumes that Yasuhara conducts cooling at a rate that falls below 10oC/s. However, this assumption is inaccurate, as Yasuhara expressly teaches cooling at a rate of 20-150oC/s (abstract; col. 11, lines 7-29), which falls within the specification’s cooling rate range of 10oC/s or more (page 10, line 31).
Yasuhara discloses that the cooling rate forms a uniform and fine bainitic structure (col. 11, lines 14-17). The present specification states that the cooling rate produces a uniform and fine monophase bainitic microstructure, which contributes to the high plasticity, toughness, cold bending performance, and expansion ratio (page 11, lines 14-20). Since Yasuhara forms the same resulting microstructure as the steels of the present invention, it therefore follows that the claimed properties would also be expected in Yasuhara’s steels.
Applicant argues that Yasuhara does not disclose a single example that simultaneously satisfies the claimed composition and properties. Applicant points to examples in which Mn exceeds the upper limit of 2.0% and in which C exceeds the upper limit of 0.10%. Applicant points to the lack of examples in which the mechanical properties fall within the claimed range and possess the claimed chemical composition.
In response, examples and preferred embodiments are not evidence of teaching away when acceptable broader ranges are taught by the prior art. See MPEP § 2123(II). In other words, Yasuhara’s invention is not limited in scope to the specific examples in its tables. Yasuhara teaches that C can be as low as 0.05% (col. 5, lines 62-65), which matches the lower limit recited in claim 1. Yasuhara also teaches that Mn can be as low as 1.5% (col. 6, lines 31-33), which falls in the middle of the range recited in claim 1. The mechanical properties in the tables are representative of what Yasuhara’s steels can achieve and should not be construed as only attainable and tied to the specific alloy compositions because the full scope of Yasuhara’s invention covers whole ranges of chemical alloying components and process parameters.
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 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
February 10, 2026